Signal has offered custom stickers for years, but it’s up to the user to generate them.

I’m mostly against downvoting without explanation, so here it is: expressing this sentiment in this community without a really solid explanation of why you think it would actually help seems like trolling.

The relevant section of the DMA imposes restrictions on designated gatekeepers. It does not apply to websites that are not designated as gatekeepers.

That behavior might be questionable under the GDPR though.

A quick web search for third-party coverage information tells me that Wanaque has good coverage from Verizon and poor coverage from T-Mobile. It’s easy to guess why T-Mobile might be motivated to change that situation.

Federated systems are one option for this. On one of my sites, the only way people can leave comments is with ActivityPub. They must have a (probably pseudonymous) account on a server to use that, and I hope that most servers have moderation I find acceptable. I can block those that do not.

More sophisticated options for sharing reputation between servers would help here. If, for example five servers I trust block another server as a source of harassment, I’d like to block it as well, automatically.

Google had the chance to make its Hangouts messaging app dominant when it was, briefly the default SMS client on Android devices. They threw that away following pushback from carriers.

I’m glad Google doesn’t have the dominant messaging service, but I find it bizarre anybody still uses SMS when there are so many internet-based options. I have six, and if somebody really wants to use another, I’ll probably add it.

I’m sure Apple shares a lot of the blame, but holy shit how is this not solved in 2024. I shouldn’t have to resort to spam filled shitware from Meta to get remotely modern messaging cross platform

There’s no shortage of options; the problem is getting the people you’re talking to to agree on one you like. I find Signal strikes a good balance between goodness and ease of use, and many people I know who aren’t tech or privacy nerds use it.

My (self-hosted) Mastodon server seems unable to view profiles on Threads. As far as I can tell, there’s nobody to talk to about that.

I don’t have high hopes about Meta having good intentions here, but I am eager to see platforms that would have previously been walled gardens open up to the federated model. I do think we have some work to do on the open source side to manage the potential massive increase in exposure once Threads users can follow users of other software.

Of course you can pick a server that blocks Threads if you just don’t want to deal with that.

It’s also illegal in most jurisdictions. My point isn’t that anyone should drive without insurance, but that allowing insurance companies to offer discounts for accepting spying will lead to the spying being effectively mandatory for most people.

I’m inclined to think this should be illegal because it could lead to a situation where insurance is unavailable to or unaffordable for anyone who doesn’t opt in to fairly invasive tracking.

Why do you have an app for that?

And the losing server has to cooperate, which is why I mentioned the commitment to support migrating away.

ATProto/Bluesky has some interesting ideas, and I’m interested to see how that develops as third parties start supporting the protocol. For a new service launching now, I think ActivityPub is the more important protocol to support, but it’s presumably possible to support both.

ActivityPub supports alsoKnownAs and movedTo so that users can migrate their social graphs to a different server or software. Of course that doesn’t work for migrating from networks that don’t support ActivityPub.

Content import is a separate issue, but I can imagine it being helpful as well.

I think it would be great for new social things like this to just speak ActivityPub. They can build up their own user experience and culture while joining a larger network. I don’t have a problem with the software itself being non-free if the protocols are and they commit to supporting account migration.

They’re using loaded language to say that without access to the source code and the ability to modify it, Cara could start behaving in a way you don’t like and you wouldn’t be able to do anything about it.

Libre means free as in freedom rather than free as in cost. A service that costs money to use, but communicates using open protocols, gives you full control over your data, and allows you to easily migrate to competitors and self-hosted solutions might be described as “libre”.

It’s true I’m assuming the author is being honest about what Cloudflare sent them and not leaving out a message where they made the situation abundantly clear. That’s definitely possible, and we probably won’t find out because big companies don’t usually give public responses to this sort of thing.

name any other large provider that would behave differently

I can’t, and this makes me inclined to believe it’s a mistake to rely on any of them without a failover plan. Of course that’s effectively impossible for some situations, like mobile apps requiring app store access. That seems like a situation that calls for antitrust enforcement.

Maybe I haven’t been clear enough.

I have no objection to Cloudflare or any other service provider dropping a risky or unprofitable customer. That’s normal and fair in business.

What I don’t like is their apparent poor communication and failure to provide a clear (and reasonably distant) deadline so that the author’s company could find a solution that avoided downtime. Were I on that company’s board, I’d likely be pretty unhappy with the author for not having a contingency plan prepared in advance, but as a third-party observer my main takeaway is that if I rely on Cloudflare and they suddenly decide they don’t like something I’m doing, I’m screwed.

Again, I’m not seeing an unambiguous TOS violation here. They have some catch-all stuff about creating an undue burden and an even broader clause saying, essentially they can drop any customer without cause. I have no doubt Cloudflare is legally in the clear, but when I read about something like this, I think I wouldn’t set anything important up with Cloudflare as a critical part of its infrastructure.

Of course, the author could be leaving out a bunch of context to make himself look good.

I did a quick search through Cloudflare’s TOS and did not find anything about gambling. What was the TOS violation here?

What I’m seeing is Cloudflare communicating very poorly about what actions the customer would need to take to keep their site operating, why, and what the timeline would be. “We’ve determined operating your casino website on Cloudflare IP addresses is an unacceptable risk to our other customers and we require that you upgrade to an Enterprise plan within two weeks or your service will be terminated” is clear, concise, and I believe entirely fair. What they did here makes me think they’re an unreliable and unpredictable service provider.