I very much agree with the general sentiment here about Microsoft's substantial hypocrisy and what a bad look it is, but isn't it likely to the benefit of consumers if these large companies are helping fuel legitimate antitrust lawsuits at each other?
I just don't know how I feel about the whole reddit mod situation in the context of this article.
On one hand, it does seem like the removal of moderators from some subs contributed to the deterioration of quality content. Reddit making that decision against the will of certain subs felt disrespectful to the autonomy of those communities.
On the other hand, I was personally never under the impression that moderators were at all subject matter experts. Their primary role is to enforce the rules of the platform and the sub. Any sort of vetting process exists almost solely on the current mods and the feedback they decide to consider from the community.
Here is Firefox's feature page for fingerprint blocking.
From what I understand about the specific setting you are referencing, the information typically used to build profiles is randomized each day.
My experience with fingerprint blocking in general has been cumbersome. The changes to time, window sizes, colors, etc., ultimately lowered the convenience and quality of life of my overall browsing experience.
I'm sure with the right setup, application, and mindset someone could find fingerprint blocking in it's current form to be useful.
I agree that the issue presented by the article is likely not related to colonialism. More so the disinterest in providing further security resources to the area.
A lot of the Middle East, including Afghanistan, has been affected by the colonial interests of the British Empire in the past. Albeit mostly in the mid to late 19th century and into the WW1 era.
I doubt I understand the nuances to make any claims that the prior issues are indirectly affecting the area currently, but I believe it is worth to note the relation as why it could be brought up in comments.
While I mostly agree with what you're saying here, I would like to point out that removing Google Search from an Android device can prevent a user from accessing other applications or specific features within (obviously Google developed apps). I guess that one really comes down to what we think working "just fine" is.
Yeah, I understand that hearing the same simple explanation of "you don't own it..." gets to be annoying. Especially in places like this where most people are pretty well aware of the situation.
The primary issue seems to be that enough people support this type of service willingly for the sake of convenience and are generally ignorant to the potential long-term issues. It feels pretty exploitative as a consumer.
But I don't see how making the distinction between ownership of the content vs the license is providing legwork for those services. In my mind, that distinction is key for understanding that the service is not for me. And I may just be looking at this too optimistically, but I would hope the same would be true for users who don't read the fine print, or happen to have not understood the issue until something like this post is presented.
In this particular situation, the use of deadly force was more so triggered by the fact that the guy was lying about having a weapon and then tries to pull said weapon during a search of his person. The headlock was not the key factor here.