sudneo

There are serious cyber security implications here that people are sleeping on

No, there are not.

At most, if they decide to kill the project by adding malicious code they can affect Lemmy itself. 99% of users don't run Lemmy (which is where the "quiet exploits" would run), and the frontend simply doesn't allow you to have a serious impact, unless you think they will stumble upon a browser 0-day and they decide to burn it by committing the exploit to an open source repo instead of selling it for millions (or use it elsewhere).

What's with the fearmongering? Their stance is crystal clear since ever.

possibly even fork the Lemmy repos

Right, and who maintains the fork? Who, among the large population of external contributor, I mean?

Like, no opinion on if what was morally right or not, just what the numbers worked out.

I don't want to get in the merit of the comment, but unless you see the future, this statement is simply not true. Your argument is simply based on accepting certain assumptions as true.

Coincidentally this argument is routinely used by people supporting american atrocities, who consider nuking hundreds of thousands of people the humanitarian solution to WWII.

To be clear, I don't agree with that line of moderation, I don't agree with most of the views that seem to characterize .ml, but it's a year that people make posts like this one, you can't tell me you don't understand the ban based on the above.

Yes, that's true. I guess that is for sure a better metric that being "international".

Many do both, I would say the vast majority. Same regulations and licenses apply, in fact. Simply some companies invest more in casino (which are purchased games from vendors in the vast majority of cases), some invest more in sportsbook. I guess the OP's case is the former, but it's not a very relevant distinction to make.

If you are cloudflare and you suspect they broke ToS you quote which ToS has been broken, you specify which country blocking the customer is trying or has tried to circumvent and you force the customer to either move away or enforce geo-blocking for those countries (or have a separate account for those with your own IPs). There is no reason to cancel the whole account if the blocking is country-specific and there is no way that 10k a month is anyway a sufficient benefit for cloudflare for their IPs to be blocked in a country (affecting potentially hundreds or thousand of customers).

I despise gambling, I don't gamble myself and I consider it a tax on those who don't know math. That said, I worked for a gambling company and I know that different companies target different types of customers. Also they have responsible gambling programs that are more or less serious (some of which might be required by regulations). The company I worked for operated in Scandinavia and was sportsbook heavy (vs casino heavy), and had quite serious measures against suspected addicts (immediate block, calling the person on the phone if there were any signs like long sessions etc., proof of income to set limits proportional to income etc.), because it was considered bad for business. Many companies in general are terrible, and especially those who depend on casino games, where the margins are fixed and the dynamics are more prone to create addiction (available 24/7, quick feedback etc.).

No they don't, at least for Sweden. I remember when they regulated the market in Sweden (I was working for a gambling company at the time and I had to run the security & compliance for the Swedish license). There is no such thing as open market for gambling where the market is regulated (Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, not sure if Norway finally regulated).

As far as I know, a handful of companies got regulated at the first round, some failed and could not operate in Sweden (this might mean you actually need to deny access to users from Sweden - since you do KYC you know) for quite some time (before they eventually managed to get the license).

The problem (why the other user mentions all similar sites) is that the big companies (say Kindred group, Betsson) tend to spin up many alternative brands with different looks to attract different customers.

Also, most of the companies that operate in Scandinavia use the Maltese license, but that works only in unregulated markets (Finland, Iceland and Norway for example - unless something changed in the last 3 years). That said, getting a license once you have another is quite simple usually. The Swedish license for example is easier to get than and very similar to the Danish one, so if you operate in Denmark you can just fill in the paperwork and you should be easily able to pick that one up.

Online casinos can become international very simply, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a big company. You usually get a license and can operate in that country + a number of gray markets. Ofc there are also huge companies, but "international" doesn't mean much for an online business.

I worked for an online casino in the past. What they do is a standard in the industry. The company I worked for was a small startup and onwed hundreds of domains, mostly just to protect the brand, 98% of which redirected to the main domain, with a few serving slightly different sites for different jurisdictions (e.g. Ontario regulations require that everything happens under a .ca domain). The "blocking evasion" doesn't require CF to do anything, besides forcing the customer to block traffic from certain countries (the ones where you are suspected to evade the block). At this point - if the casino is really operating in the black or gray markets - they can just set ingress to their site outside CF for those countries only if they really wanted. I worked also for a company who was doing this to allow traffic from Russia, changing every day mirrors (and they had an IT department of maybe 20, it was a joke), and Russia was the main market for them.

If what is told in the article is true - I.e. 95% of the traffic was through the main website - then it doesn't look like they were really doing this sort of evading deliberately, considering that in that 5% you have all your alternative TLDs plus the traffic from gray/black markets. Having hundreds of domains and some small percentage of traffic from black markets is something that just happens, it's different from continuously registering new domains for providing access where the previous ones got DNS blocked (this is domain block). It doesn't seem this is what they were doing based on the article, and if they were, then CF emails didn't mention it, which is insane.

Obviously we don't know the full story, so everything has to he taken with a grain of salt.

It does require fact-checking. You might ask a human and get someone with 10 fingers on one hand, you might ask people in the background and get blobs merged on each other. The fact check in images is absolutely necessary and consists of verifying that the generate image adheres to your prompt and that the objects in it match their intended real counterparts.

I do agree that it's a different type of fact checking, but that's because an image is not inherently correct or wrong, it only is if compared to your prompt and (where applicable) to reality.

Yes, you cited examples from early 2000 and then you add current references that have the characteristics I have observed. Maybe you should develop your argument better at this point? Or are you keeping the best examples that show meaningful, present, contributions secrets just to make your argument weaker on purpose?

I pointed out flaws in your arguments which you keep not addressing by making arrogant comments, which makes me thing you don't have any more arguments to use.

Also, I don't hate Apple, I don't care for it. I even mentioned in my very first comment that what Apple does is no different from what other organizations do, even if those make currently bigger contributions to FOSS (Microsoft contributions to the Linux kernel, google project zero reports etc.).

You also continue to avoid the argument that forbidding people to run what they want on generic purpose hardware is completely against the principles of FOSS, and yet all your argument is "why would they". This fact alone would put any OSS contribution to shame, because it's a clear as day demonstration that they don't believe (let alone care) about the Freedom of users, and that opensourcing is a mere way to pursue business interests, which has no moral value on its own.

You cited a couple of mid-2000 projects (e.g. OpenCL), that Apple opensourced and that anyway hardly apply to the current Apple, since 15+ years passed and the company is under new leadership etc. Then you listed a bunch of links, which I have looked at, and I saw that the vast majority of the OSS projects are related to Swift-ui and other tools that are useful to build app (mostly) in their ecosystem (webKit, careKit, etc.).

So to understand better, your argument fully relies on contributions that happened 15 years ago, to claim that the current company "cares" about FOSS?

Also, you disregard the second part of the argument in order to write your arrogant reply:

Apple is even worse than them considering how they want to have the complete monopoly of what can run on their hardware, which is completely antithetical to the core idea of FOSS.

Which is an answer to your statement:

So? Why should they? It’s a major competitor. Should they provide windows support too? Lol. (They don’t anymore, btw)

Which begs the question: what caring about FOSS means to you? For me caring about FOSS means caring about the freedom of the customers who already paid for their hardware to run whatever they want on it. This freedom Apple opposes in whatever way they can, in basically whatever hardware they make.