261–270 of 286 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you didn't know it either, you just guessed differently from other people's guesses.
If you believed twenty years ago that free candy forever was real then you have my deepest slow shuffling away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. The 2004 chat snippet is notable because it displayed attitude that was uncommon at the time. Zuck made it mainstream.
Wasn't Google's business model to slurp up literally everything on the web, and everything users would give them to sell eyeballs to advertisers? Gmail also dates to 2004. If reading your email to sell ads to third parties based on the content of your private correspondence doesn't fit that attitude, I don't know what does. I stand by my assertion that this shit was always going on, we just weren't wise to it in the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't you value your childhood photos?
If I trusted my friend to hold onto my childhood photo collection as a favor, and then came back to find him asking for $5 to return it, and I reluctantly agree only to find him empty handed, I wouldn't consider that providing value.
What value you put on memories is a good question.
(The companies exist to help corporations recover million dollar risks and price their time and equipment to match that market, not boomer memory lane)
Selfhost with Unraid and Immich.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are laws and regulations. There is also legal risk and reputation. One of the big companies, Meta, already decided to go ahead and grab terabytes of pirated books to feed their LLM. [0] Therefore I would not give them (or similar entities) the benefit of the doubt when it comes to how they might use text that customers "gave" them under some unreadably-favorable terms of service. With PII, the pirated-books e…
Is the reputational risk of pirating terabytes of books worse than the reputational risk of shredding (destructively scanning) millions of books? https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/06/anthropic-destroyed-milli...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well one complaint is that the OP was told he would be able to get photos for $5 when they actually weren’t any there (which photobucket knew before obviously). That actually seems deceptive enough that I would try to get my money back.
Imagine you were building this reactivation flow. How likely would you have thought it to be that someone keeps the password to a completely unused account for 10-20 years, then suddenly misremembers it as an actually-used account and goes to reactivate it? This has probably happened on Photobucket maybe 5 times total. I don't even remember the names of any sites I signed up for and never used in 2006, let alone have…
The case of not having images is really obvious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://xkcd.com/1150/
Back in the 2000s there was an implicit social contract that websites would treat your uploaded data with respect. You weren't putting your stuff in Chad's garage, you were putting it in a professional seeming storage business that just happened to be free because none of us really understood how to monetize the net.
And I expect a professional business to protect my items less long than Chad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wasn't Google's business model to slurp up literally everything on the web, and everything users would give them to sell eyeballs to advertisers? Gmail also dates to 2004. If reading your email to sell ads to third parties based on the content of your private correspondence doesn't fit that attitude, I don't know what does. I stand by my assertion that this shit was always going on, we just weren't wise to it in the…
Google's early business model was to make something cool and figure out monetization later, like many firms from that era. When they got acquired by Doubleclick, they pivoted to advertising but still took time to get it to the evil stage.
You could claim that google in the 90s was about building something cool and making money later, but not 2000s google.
As an aside, "make something cool, monetize later" is exactly the problem. It's deferred evil. The people who wrote the check to have youmake something cool aren't paying you to make something cool, they are paying you to figure out the monetization down the road.