That sounds like something Jackass would do.

I would much rather pay for a missile that Ukraine fires against a Russian tank in Ukraine, than pay for a missile I have to fire against the Russian tank myself after it rolled through Ukraine and to my doorstep.

I would also much rather pay to educate the world (using Russia as an example) that the international community isn’t putting up with wars of aggression and won’t let you get away with them, than have the world thrown into disarray when the next country decides to disrupt global supply chains with their war of aggression.

Supporting Ukraine is a smart thing regardless of what you think of Ukraine. It’s also the morally right thing, but if you don’t care about that, egoism should drive you to the same decision.

I think there is a huge psychological difference between “spending on public good” and “here is some money”, and especially where the latter happens, it should be very clear that the money is coming from the state/nation, not the individual leading it.

That may be obvious to you, so the message doesn’t look like a problem, but I bet at least 1% of Americans think Trump personally gave them some of his personal cash out of generosity, effectively turning it into a bribe with public money. Which is exactly why Trump insisted that his name would be placed on the check. (The letter that came with it was surprisingly reasonable and clear, which is why I estimated 1% and not 5%).

Honestly, it’s kinda icky for a candidate to campaign for himself in conjunction with handing out public money, whether it’s done by a Republican (Trump with the relief checks) or a Democrat.

No, the network effect is too strong. Deleting WhatsApp is cutting off the primary/only way to contact many friends (in countries where it's the primary messenger), and a mild form of "abandon everything and go live in a monastery".

uBlock Origin explicitly advises against this. If it's the only content blocker it doesn't currently have issues with YouTube, if you have multiple you'll probably hit the "disable your adblocker" warning.

The first three are using identical techniques so combining them is of very limited benefit. They're mostly there to cover software that doesn't have an ad blocker.

I'd stick with just ublock origin.

I'm glad that we can get news from such obviously neutral and unbiased sources. I'm sure a site calling itself "Electronic Intifada"would never try to distort the truth. /s

In this case, I'd say the censorship worked in favor of Hamas, and while "poorly moderated" platforms did give them the opportunity to spread their "propaganda", Hamas used it to show everyone their true face. The result of the propaganda was people who were previously sympathetic to the Palestinian's cause we're now calling for Gaza to be turned into a parking lot.

I also find it rather rich that the article is complaining about misinformation when most of the press printed the lie about the hospital attack as if it was a fact.

Oh, I absolutely understand that a lot of tracking is stil possible. But in practice, it's usually handled by third parties via a script loaded from a third party domain, because doing any of the smarter stuff would require a) a competent IT team b) the marketing team talking to them constantly.

Much easier to just slap another tracker into Google Tag Manager.

Of course this doesn't help against tech companies. YouTube, Facebook, Reddit etc. will most likely track your views based on the requests, which you can't avoid. But this takes care of 90% of the tracking, and most importantly, it removes the "everyone tracking you across every site you visit" aspect of the ad surveillance industry.

uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger.

Can't fingerprint my machine if your fingerprinting script never loads.

There is an universally available subscription that applies to all services, costs $0/month, refuses donations, and is called uBlock Origin.

Haven't noticed any of the YouTube issues either so far.

20% of their revenue comes from the EU, almost all of it from ads. I'd argue that complying with the law would cost them more than a quarter of the EU ads revenue, without affecting their costs much -> that'd be 5% of global revenue. Breaking the law still pays.

Also, how do you conclude that 448 million people paying 90 EUR per year, for a total of 40 billion EUR, wouldn't offset a 4.66 billion USD fine?

If the fine was 4% of global revenue every month, sure. So far it looks like it'd be every 3-5 years though…

Just seeing the renaming bullshit they pulled off (really? renaming an existing project AND renaming a different thing to the old name?!?) is enough to avoid both projects. Anyone who creates confusion like that will also make other unsound decisions.

A monumental amount, or a tiny tax if the abuse doubles their profit…

If you store them separately (or use U2F/WebAuthn/security keys), yes - it gives you some protection you if your password manager gets hacked.

If you just store them in the same password manager - no (except that some sites require it or create additional pains in the ass like forced e-mail based 2fa unless you have 2fa already).

I didn't check for this one, some news communities require it, some don't.

Still shouldn't reward news sites for doing this unless you want more clickbait titles.

If the community allows, posting with a better title is also an option.

Thanks. (Clickbait title = article downvoted)

Have you read 1984? The UK was always using it as an instruction manual and trying to do their best Airstrip One impression.

Either that or they try to take advantage and loot.