yes, well you cannot compare players from different times. In his time Pele was the best player in the World. In 1958, he was 17 and was the first black player in the Brazilian national team. There was some heat because of that. He went there and destroyed the prejudice and the adversaries. In the 1970, he wasn't playing anymore, but he did a comeback, getting in shape and winning the World Cup in Mexico with an outstanding performance. Was Maradona the best of his time? I don't agree. He was the best in his prime time, but it was no longer than 4-6 years. In the 80s, 90s we had definitely other players which were as good as him or better (depending on the time period): Socrates, Zico, Lothar Matthaus, Michel Platini, Hugo Sanchez,Ruud Gullit, its a long list. In the 90s even longer.
Pele won 3 world cups. He won 2 world titles with Santos. Santos used to travel around the world like the globetrotters because of him. He scored more than 1000 goals.
But Pele played at a time where football was not as polished as today. That also includes Maradona. Messi, Ronaldo are much much better football players than them both. But of course with the strong competition today it is a lot harder to accomplish what Pele and Maradona did.
Football is a team game, and that is a lot more true today than three, four decades ago.
you are comparing apples with oranges. You cannot compare football from the 50s,70s with football from today, simply because the whole society changed. If football wasn't as polished as today, to out stand in this environment is even harder. Every injury could mean the end of your career. Pele was raised poor, served the army, played professionally from 1950 - 1977(!!)
Messi in another hand is "professional" since he was 6. He moved to Barcelona at age of 10 to go through an hormonal treatment and since then he is exposed to professional football. Such chance was impossible back in the 50s for a black kid in Brazil or anyone else actually.
The requirement of forming joint ventures has been dropped since 2014. The 'forced tech transfer' rhetoric has been out of date since the first day of the trade war.
Where does the line between blocking illegal content vs censorship go?
In the western world we would probably allow ISPs to block sites that promote traditions that we do not see as normal. For example; in some east asian countries they eat dogs during festival. Websites selling dog meat shipping to western countries would be blocked in my country.
Why can't India censor websites than promote values they dont agree with? Or Russia?
Every country and people are unique and they have different values. We shouldnt try to assimilate those.
Im totally against Social medias. And believe they have caused mental health damage to large section of the population.
but lets talk about general censorship vs freedom without Social medias in the equation.
You could argue that freedom of speech is a sacrosant right, like the right to live, that no law(not even the constitution) can overrule. You will lost that battle, with reason, because things like child pornography or slander must not be protected.
So the second approach is to say, ok, some things are better censored, let the laws to clearly define that. If something must be appended or removed, do it through the appropriate channel, sponsor a bill, vote it, make it law, create the precedent.Rinse and repeat. A tedious game, but a needed one.
What you cannot do is to let the techno-barons to decide themselves what should or shouldnt be said, when they are managing platforms that are quasi-monopolistic.
If there is one thing about laws is that they're messy and complex, a reflection of the world we live in. Our culture and values constantly evolve, and the laws are normally following those so something legal or illegal at this moment might not be in the future.
And that's why there is a full branch of government dedicated to that work, a branch that at least in theory is at the service of the nation. Totally opposite to the XXI century digital Rockefellers.
"state censorship" at least in The USA, is pretty limited.
So yes, I would prefer the existing system, where state censorship is extremely limited, to a situation where instead censorship is much more broad and effects more people.
If the speech is legal, then it should be allowed on major communication platforms.
There is even existing laws for this, that we could expand to cover new forms of media.
Those existing laws are called common carrier laws, and they currently apply to the phone network, and they could be changed to include many of the major new platforms.
Common carrier laws are pretty uncontroversial. I would hope that you do not think as they apply to the phone system, that they are some huge example of unfairness.
By wanting to use legal measures to force publishers to carry certain speech, you're not only drastically limiting the organizations' own free speech rights, but very quickly opening up a short path to punishing those who refuse to carry certain messages. Another word for that is (literally) propaganda.
This whole movement of people begging the government to prevent companies from curating their content, under the guise of fucking free speech of all things, is so deep into doublespeak territory that it just leaves me in awe.
Do you think it is some huge infringement that phone companies are required to follow common carrier laws?
Common carrier laws are pretty uncontroversial. Those existing laws could be updated to include communication networks that are more relevant in the modern day.
Social media outlets are publishers, I have no problem with them editorializing. I wouldn’t have a problem with a book store not carrying a book or a newspaper not publishing a crank opinion piece, why should I have a problem with twitter banning someone (or whatever else)?
Because then you will have to shut your mouth when Google delists you, youtube deplatforms you and Amex/Visa/MasterCard refuse to do business with you just because something, perfectly legal, that you said. Maybe it is OK for you, for me it is bone chilling scary.
However some are upset at what one nation's laws and courts block as compared to another. The Zuckerberg's and Dorsey's of the world however are intimidated into doing such censorship on the behalf of politicians who cannot do it themselves.
They accomplish this simply by attacking the organizations on another front. Never underestimate the coercive nature of politicians whose own countries forbid censorship they can get another to do for them.
The simple fact is, our western values are not the world's values.
There are such things as good and bad in the world.
Cultural relativism is brain poison. It is very important to define and fight for universal human rights, such as the right to date and marry someone regardless of gender.
You can disable these annoying prompts by going to https://myaccount.google.com/permissions and disabling "Google Account sign-in prompts". Ideally it should have been user opt in but Google followed dark pattern here.
This implies that Google already knows that it's you when it shows the sign-in prompt on some 3rd party website and they are already tracking you there even though you are not signed in. Lovely. Not that you'd expected anything else from Google.
Yes, the pop-up is for signing into the site with your already-signed-in Google account. If you're not logged in then you use the site's default login mechanism.
Of course they do. It uses an IFrame request to the Google.com domain (so that the "host" website doesn't see any details before you login). Google can however see who you are because your auth cookies and what-not will be sent along with that Iframe request on whatever host website decides to use this pattern. See: Medium
A further issue with this is that Google knows you're on that website because the referrer and request headers will have that on the IFrame request.
Just to be totally clear, this is how tracking cookies work everywhere. The site you visit includes an iframe with an ID "X" that identifies itself, the iframe loads `trackingsite.com?id=X`, the request includes your cookies for that domain (or at least the ones that are allowed for an iframe request), now `trackingsite.com` logs a visit to Site X from the user holding Cookie Y.
There's a fundamental conflict between privacy and convenience, because I have to either allow no third-party cookies, which means no one can embed any authenticated content from a third-party context (think Disqus comments on a blog), or I have to allow third-party tracking. The middle ground -- allowing some third-party cookies but not others -- is a UX nightmare. Just trying to explain the situation to an average user, at all, is nearly impossible, much less interrupting every visit to every site with "Can I use cookies from {site 2} here? How about {site 3,4,5...112}?".
I've been fiddling with ublock on how to disable this. would've never guessed about the settings in google account. this should've been disabled by default or an option on the pop-up to permanently disable it.
I mean, the simple answer is because they're trying to spread the use of Google login, make it ubiquitous, so they can own all authentication mechanisms too as if owning everything else isn't enough.
Yes and it pissed me off because on mobile it pops up like 0.5-2 seconds late so if you're unlucky you go to click on something and it popups up under your finger and you've suddenly signed up and shared your info with a company you had no intention of ever signing up with.
I complained to Google. I have a GSuites domain and I don't want my users to be able to sign up via Google. No resolution. I suggest you all complain too
I semi worked around it by adding accounts.google.com to my ublock origin block list but about once a month I have to turn it off to allow me to log into Google.
Note: I'm not against google. I am against this auto-popup. The logical conclusion is you'll go to a page and get 6 of those popups or more. One to sign up with Google, one to sign up with Apple. One to sign up with Facebook. One to sign up with Linkedin, etc...
The design of that system by google is not a good design based on the idea that if everyone did it it would be bad. Google should top it. If I click "sign up" on the sight then let the site offer me "login with X" and don't contect X until I click "login with X"
> I semi worked around it by adding accounts.google.com to my ublock origin block list but about once a month I have to turn it off to allow me to log into Google.
This is where uBO's dynamic filtering[1] is useful, as it allows you to globally block `accounts.google.com`, and then unblock it only for specific sites by overriding the global block rule with a local noop rule.
Also I reflexively clicked ok out of laziness and annoyance without knowing what it was. Not quite a dark pattern but you certainly aren’t completely aware what it’s asking within the first second of seeing it.
Yeah. Reddit is especially really intrusive and annoying. I feel like they just don't want people to use their site anymore. Whenever I open new Reddit, my memory and CPU usage goes up so badly.
Reddit website unusable on mobile, it cuts all images in half for me (Nokia 3.1 and Samsung A51), and it's just laggy. I use RedReader from F-Droid instead.
Yes, it also loads forever, hides half the comments, constant pop-ups telling you to use the app instead, cannot read some (non-quarantined) subs without logging in, no NSFW without logging in, back button is broken, frequent error in loading pages...
On the desktop it still usable with old.reddit.com.
But honestly it's probably for the best, less time wasted.
They can't even manage to get their video player to work. Even your local news web sites, which ten years after YouTube still couldn't manage to consistently get a video to play in the browser, have figured it out by now. But Reddit? Nope. Requires me to hit the play button 3-4 times in order to start the video, stops randomly in the middle of the video, and "re-play" never works. I mean, we're almost in 2021! Developers, if you can't figure it out, just give up and embed YouTube.
Same here, it's painfully slow and I click their search results only when I don't know where else to look. Given reddit's sheer size and popularity in quite a few countries, I wonder how many MWh and CO2e the new version uses and causes.
There's a rich ecosystem of incredible third party reddit apps on android, as an alternative. Reddit is really unpleasant to use on the mobile web, even without the dark patterns.
This together with RES and Shine makes it really pleasant actually. In fact, I think you don't need to visit old.reddit.com for RES/Shine to work. CPU/MEM usage is off the charts though (has gotten much better).
Yes, and it bothers me a lot, even if it's in an iframe, that it has my real name from my Gmail account inside the unrelated third party pages. I do not trust Javascript iframe policies from preventing the host sites of exfiltrating my name from the Google signin frame. Javascript and browser exploits have a long history.
This uBlock Origin rule blocks the popups at least:
X-Frame-Options and cookie access rules would help protect against that a layer beneath Javascript. I get your point that ultimately any security breach can escalate to full-on compromise of all personal data. I still find it playing with fire to have completely unrelated sites having my name inside an iframe.
I use Firefox containers at work but I was postponing doing the same at home because it takes a bit of work to create the containers, assign sites, troubleshoot some minimal issues, etc; and THIS made me finally do it.
I knew that I was being tracked, but that was a bit too "in my face" to ignore it.
Same here. Seeing that popup on medium.com with my google login identity was what finally prompted me to start using containers. Now google's domains are safely kept in their little box where they belong.
It's funny because there's nothing new about those login popups - I already knew conceptually that kind of thing was possible - but seeing your little avatar picture show up where it doesn't belong provokes a much more direct reaction than abstract knowledge.
Really the dumbest, most confusing design I've ever seen to make a website seem like it knows who you are when you visit as a guest.
When I first saw it on Pinterest, it took me a moment to figure out what I was looking at as a web developer of 20 years. My girlfriend still didn't get it after I was explaining it to her. How does anyone else have a shot at arriving at "oh, so the site doesn't actually have access to this information that's being displayed on the site."
When I was younger, I thought good UX design was obvious, something all of us had intuition for as users ourselves. All you do is put yourself in the user's shoes and ask basic questions and use basic empathy. Of course, now being in software for so long, I realize it's one of the rarest and most unrecognized skills.
If you empathize with normal users, you realize they don't care the least about any of this. They want to use a convenient service to do things. To post pictures of themselves, to see what their friends and frenemies are up to, what's the new cool thing etc etc. Login should just work, nobody cares what is displayed where, and which site knows what. Normal people (outside the HN) bubble don't care about these things, like privacy and what data they share. It doesn't get them closer to the things they want to do online, that is post things and consume content.
The problem is that it doesn’t really work, because if next time they somehow log in with their email/Twitter/Facebook/Apple ID instead, it will make a new, totally unrelated account, and all their stuff will be mysteriously gone for no apparent reason.
This is a real problem. One would think that a respectable site would give us the option to recover via email, but that is not the case. I had this exact issue with Kobo yesterday, I'm forced to use Facebook login even though they have my email as a recovery option.
I never see these. I wonder if it’s because I have ublock properly configured or because I block third party cookies or because I never sign in to Google on my main browsing profile.
I am tired of this 2trillion company becoming too strong. Screw them. I aint gonna develop for them anymore. Parasites.
Got this mail from Apple:
Dear Developer,
Compatible iOS and iPadOS apps will automatically appear on the Mac App Store when the first Apple silicon Macs become available this year. However, we noticed the following issues with one or more of your apps that are opted in to appear.
The following apps will not be made available on the Mac App Store until you address the issues and select Make this app available on Mac in the app's Pricing and Availability section of App Store Connect.
This article spreads misinformation about Bannon. He said «heads should be on spike» which means people should be sacked. This article excaggerates it as «beheading». What a nasty trick to fool the readers
> I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England. I’d put the heads on pikes. I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats.
He seems to mean it literally. Or he's taking the metaphor way beyond it's reasonable limit.
I'd say that not including the full quote while attempting to defend is a "nasty trick".
You think he actually wants to kill two people, behead them and put their rotting heads on pikes. One left and one right of the entrance of the white house. That is a completely reasonable interpretation of what he said?
"Second term kicks off with firing Ray, firing Fauci. Now I actually want to go a step farther ... I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England. I’d put the heads on pikes. I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats"
You can't attack another user like this, no matter how wrong they are or you feel they are. We ban accounts that do it, so please read the rules and stick to them: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Edit: Similar things have popped up in your other comments (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24954162) – that's not what we're going for here. If you'd lease review the guidelines and take their spirit to heart, we'd appreciate it.
Because they are themselves spreading misinformation. The direct quote itself is pretty unambiguous. When a (former) government official declares that they’d “actually like to” put people’s heads on pikes, we should all be deeply concerned.
If Nancy Pelosi had said she’d “actually like to put a bullet between the eyes of Donald Trump”, would the secret service not consider that a grave threat of bodily harm?
Microsoft has to reverse this takedown.
Even though it is called "youtube-dl", it also is for downloading videoes on hundres of other video platforms!
Many, as stated in this article, use it for research purposes and investigative journalism.
Why do companies like MS, Google, Amazon etc acquire smaller companies if they cant protect the values these small companies stand for and made them attractive in first place.
I think even if 99% of google users have strict privacy, this tool is still worth it for data brokers as they can run email lists of millions of users.
And every data about a user that can be connected to the rest of the master data is gold as its all about the network effect.
here is a good example. The white box is from a publically available dataleak of a site called SexDating.se. its 10 years old db. but still i managed to extract the name of the person even though the original DB had no identifiers apart from this gmail.
