It seems like they didn't even consider any of the real issues. Things like deleted messages appearing in requests for your data, leaving a chat (or deleting your account while you are in a chat) with a deleted user not deleting the messages and uploads even though nobody is supposed to be able to re-join it, people getting banned for using scripts to mass-delete their own posts and in some cases getting banned for manually deleting their own posts "too fast", "right to be forgotten" requests being ignored, etc.
I'd guess large producers of commercial software. BigCo doesn't have any problem having an entire compliance & audit b.s. department. However, all the smaller companies, independent developers and OSS software will be regulated out of the market.
Is this really a thing? I had a .eu
domain for years. I only let it go this year(it was on annual renewal) . My registered address was and is still in UK and I never had any trouble from my registrar(eurodns) about the EU domain. Or do they do it based on the payment method? (I might have used an EU cc to renew)?
It seems .eu domains are more or less only available to people who live in the EU/EEA, hold EU/EEA citizenship or businesses that conduct business in the region.
And that was always so; it's not "more-or-less", you've never been able to have a .eu domain unless you "belong to" the EU, for various values of "belong to". Always read the T&C.
You're being downvoted but this is actually good advice.
As someone who worked in domain names for 5 years, I often suggest to either use one of the historical gTLDs (com, net, info, org) or the ccTLD of your country if it's popular enough (.fr for France, .uk/.co.uk for United Kingdom, etc.)
Never use the ccTLD of a different country than yours, eligibility rules can change with very short notice. For .eu the notice was long enough but nothing guarantees it to be the case. Some trendy ccTLDs also have crappy infrastructure (.so of Somalia for example has provoked at least one outage for Notion.so).
Be very careful with newGTLDs, some of these are outright scam. There are some reliable newGTLDS (.app/.dev from Google for example, yeah, even though it's Google they have to play by ICANN's rules) but if you don't know how to determine the reliability of a newGTLD, just stick with .com/.net.
As I said before, it does not matter. Before someone had an email address and now they don't, and it could happen to anyone with an .eu domain. This is what matters. It is an unreliable TLD for email addresses that you want to last.
Various people (such as the creator of the PolyMC fork that is confusingly named PollyMC, notice the amount of 'l's) suggest to change the metadata server: https://github.com/fn2006/PollyMC/commit/121f6b2a4e05fa15b41.... I would personally suggest to use this fork because it does not require access to your MS account, so even if it was compromised the risk would end up being limited in comparison.
Side note: I find it sad to see how people took the chance to spread misinfo.
Example 2: claim that the PolyMC developer received death threats: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33240644, I have not seen any evidence for this claim in the repo nor in the reddit and twitter threads. It might have been in DMs but the developer hasn't said anything about it to my knowledge.
What was discriminatory in the "We will not act on complaints regarding" section?
* ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’
These aren't real things though - they're usually brought up in the context of methods to try and address underlying biases due to historical ("reverse" -racism, -sexism), or that I have never even heard of anyone claiming 'cisphobia' so I am unaware of when/how that would be claimed.
* Reasonable communication of boundaries...
Seems like there's nothing to discuss here at all - once a person says "stop talking to me" you can move on
* Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts
No one owes anyone their time, this is all stuff that has been covered extensively, and is easily googleable.
* Communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial
If anything this seems lax compared to many current CoCs that expect/require professional communication. This is "person X came across as angry/belittling/dismissive and it makes me upset" isn't something that they'll act on.
* Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions
e.g the CoC won't act on someone complaining that someone else criticized racist, sexist, cissexist, etc behaviour.
Again, I fail to see the "exclusionary/discriminatory" rules.
I see the bigger issue with this section is that it makes an explicit list of things that don't matter and will be ignored. This is tricky as it means they ignore things that I would say should not be ignored, and vice versa. It also kind of means any kind of assholery that comes up in future isn't explicitly covered, so what rule applies?, etc
Removing evidence of war-crimes and disallowing future historians from accessing such content in the future is not a policy that I would expect from an archive.
