Nope. It worked like other sites where you pay a fee and they host your job listing. The one difference was that the "Joel Test" was part of each post.

Early on, the job posts were low volume, high quality. I assume this was because it was only SO users who thought to advertise there. But over time, they built a sales team and ended up with the same posts as everyone else.

There's a significant number of people in the US who view any safety net as a handout and don't want others to get something for free that they themselves aren't getting.

Counterpoint -- Lyft attempted to charge me a late fee when a driver went to the wrong spot in a parking by garage.

Star rating doesn't help here

The EU regulations don't exclude P.O. Boxes. Google choose to add that requirement.

The headline and intro to the article cite the DMCA but the bulk of the examples reference UK and EU law. Additionally, most of the examples aren't related to copyright at all. Generally seems like a misleading article intended to conflate spurious takedown requests with DMCA requests (which can also be spurious, no doubt).

Additionally, the premise that actual copyright takedown notices shouldn't be available to the public is nuts. Whether you agree with the DMCA's implementation or not, any takedown mechanism must be available to all copyright holders and not just corporations with legal teams. The DMCA process is already more onerous for individuals given that they have to provide a legal street address in an era of doxxing (or pay for a P.O. Box).

You could require having your claims verified by a trustworthy party (or at least a court) before being able to send them.

The lack of verification, even just of the sender's identity, is just insane.

Or require the claimant to specify a dollar amount of damages, and be required to pay double that if the claim is ruled frivolous.

d) Give them access to legal counsel and a judge who can all help make this decision on a case-by-case basis and in accordance with the law.

You just advocated for deporting U.S. Citizens without trial simply because they're related to someone who committed a misdemeanor.

> then more privacy-protective option are not feasibly available to Shopify

I haven't laughed that hard in awhile. Poor Shopify, they couldn't possibly protect the privacy and data of their customers.

How will you operate a secure payment system without cookies?

1) You can use cookies without being anti-privacy, pro-data selling. 2) Why do you need cookies to operate a secure payment system?

At it's core, a payment system is a form. Yes, many bells and whistles around that form are powered by cookies/local storage, but they aren't necessary.

What's missing from the blog announcement is that on the at protocol, anyone can publish a verification of any account. It is then up to each client to decide which verifiers to display / trust / etc.

With that in mind, it seems like bluesky is trying to thread the needle on providing tools for the community to do their own verification (via the protocol) while also making their own client "notable user" friendly (via blessed verifications that show blue checks).

I also don't see why it wouldn't be possible for someone to build a labeler that shows verifications from non-bluesky blessed sources. Then community members could subscribe to that labeler to get non-blessed verifications that they choose to show. It wouldn't show up as a blue check but it would still show up on the user's profile in bluesky.

It would look something like this existing "verification" labeler that doesn't use the underlying verification feature on the protocol but instead has to maintain the data in a 3rd party store: https://imgur.com/a/tXR4FUu

Additionally, third-party clients like Pinksky or Skylight could choose to show blue checks or whatever UI for any verifiers they choose. All the data is on the protocol now, so the 3rd party clients wouldn't need to do the verification themselves.

Very interesting; thanks. So it is possible on the tech side, but needs organisations to take advantage.

I don't think this is your intent, but your comment reads like it's a mystery which side is lying and that we may never know the truth.

Except it's obvious. There no reason, barring police coercion, that a citizen would say they're in the country illegally.

I sincerely don’t know which side is lying, and I can certainly imagine situations someone might say that.