But it's not the game dev that handles the information, so the game studio wouldn't be at fault. The game dev never gets that info so isn't storing anything. Discord would be liable for any GDPR infractions.
thoughts3rased
joined 1 year ago
Sure, but at that point we're getting into the weeds of fake webpages, which really isn't anything apple could control anyway. Nothing's to say that if sideloading didn't exist, that page wouldn't just direct them to a form to fill out your banking information. All it does is change the method. Apple could simply maintain a hash database of files that are known as dangerous and package it into a built-in AV for iOS (like most OSes do)
Nothing's also to say that the page wouldn't just abuse one of the hundreds of vulnerabilities that currently exist in WebKit currently.
For your average user, they're probably only visiting legit sites on that browser anyway. My grandparents both have Android phones and to my knowledge have never been "tricked" into installing an APK. I can probably say the same for the vast majority of people.
I believe the benefits outweigh the costs here. Apple loses their grip on the walled garden which is punishing for developers and makes Apple judge, jury and executionor on not only what apps can run on iOS, but also how much developers have to give up to Apple (they could up their cut to 90% at anytime and currently developers can't do shit about it).
But here's the thing - side loading, even on android, is an opt-in feature. The user has to actively go out of their way to sideload an app. Even if an app tries to do it behind your back, you must first enable its ability to do so.
Yes, this doesn't exist when ADB is involved, but in that case you have to go out of your way to enable USB debugging (and be stupid enough to plug your phone into someone else's computer). The vast majority of iPhones will never have sideloading enabled by their users. The EU isn't grabbing their balls and saying that all users must have it enabled by default, otherwise they'd be going after Android too.
It's still an insult that it was only upheld by precedence and wasn't enshrined into a federal law. This isn't something that states should have the choice of deciding, as it massively affects the quality of healthcare across the country.
Brb let me completely rewrite all my unity projects and learn unreal in a single day
Did your wife's boyfriend give you the phone to use Lemmy today?
I wouldn't endorse Mangakakalot, they had some involvement in the Mangadex DDOS/breach a couple years back. Not to mention unlike MD they're a scan aggregator, which basically means they take scans from other sites (like Mangadex) and slap ads on top of them.
Not really, if you're doing your weekly shop all in one go (especially for a family), it can make sense that your weekly shop can be more than you can carry and thus you need something to help you carry it. I wouldn't want to lug 4-5 bags of shopping onto a bus where I'm going to piss someone off because I placed them on the seat, nor do I want to try to balance all that on the handlebars of a bike where a single fuckup or pothole I can't see will lose me lots of money in shopping.
I don't personally do those sorts of large shops, but people are busy and literally schedule this in their week so it's not insane.
Or hey, maybe more people could shop online? With well planned routes it could be more efficient than lots of people all travelling to one place.
Well you'd have to have gotten a lobotomy to want to buy beats in the first place.
Most mobile operators in the UK have stopped with SMS limits (unless you're on the really really cheap plans or PAYG). Guess people just don't use them enough to warrant caps on it.
I don't think Intel is too worried about boycotts because a significant portion of their customer base is businesses.
The only real sector of their customer base that would even do a boycott is the independent PC builders, and I doubt even 5% of those customers would follow through.
Your average consumer doesn't even know what the hell an "intel" is or why they should care, it's just a sticker they see on their laptop/PC.
Except that's not how it's working here. The only "contract" is the EULA that the developer agrees to when creating their discord account.
The developer doesn't collect or store the data, nor have they entered an agreement with discord for them specifically to collect this data. The game developer does not sell access to the discord server (a violation of the EULA). All they have done is use a feature on Discord, available to every user and bound to the terms of both the EULA and Discord's privacy policy.
If what you said was true, then any individual that enables the highest level of protection on any server of any size would end up being liable. This simply is not true. It would also mean that the lowest setting would also leave them liable as an email is stored, which is also not true.
It would also be incredibly hard to determine exactly what they're liable for. Is it all the users who have Discord? All the members in their server? What if a user is in multiple servers with phone/email verification turned on?
Discord collects this information as part of their service for their verification purposes, including 2FA. The implication for the developer is nothing more than a flag on an account.
The difference between the developer and Microsoft/Amazon is that those two companies, while yes they don't store it on their own servers, collect the data for use in their services for their profit for services they sell, run ads on, or collect more data to sell on. The game developer does not run discord, they do not sell discord, they have little agency over that server in discord, and is a service that discord provides. The game developer could pull out at any point and the service would still exist because it is not theirs.
TL;DR - The developer is not liable in the same way that X users aren't liable for people who verify their phone number following them. It's not their service, and the Discord EULA and Privacy Policy apply.