Can't wait until MV2 is gone in Chrome, I'm curious how much this will diminish real-world effectiveness of ad blockers and if that'll bring browsers that maintain the features ad blockers like to use a bit more market share.
Well, I'd guess for most people it doesn't matter whether the LED-chips themselves, capacitors, or some other part of the circuitry fails. If cost-cut cheap LED bulbs with components driven to the max are the norm, consumers will obviously associate LED bulbs with the kind of problems that causes and not with what LED tech could be if it'd be given more budget to breathe.
yes it is, and I agree their home page is shit. I downloaded it trough F-Droid and didn't really background check it, maybe you wanna take a look at their repo: https://gitlab.com/AuroraOSS/AuroraStore
If you're concerned about your privacy I'd advise against just trying to disable uploading but still giving your photos to apps you don't trust, primarily because of possible future implementation of client-side scanning(they are making steps to mandate that for messengers in the EU atm, for example).
AFAIK android phones upload all sorts of data to google by default, my recommendation is to install a custom ROM (like lineageOS), that will rid you of a lot of these privacy violators without dealing with them individually. If you don't want to do that, avoid google services/apps entirely for anything that you don't trust them with. I'm not familiar with google photos(never used it for (now) obvious reasons), and I don't know what features you need, so I can't really give recommendations on that specifically.
This kind of stuff is one reason why it should be illegal for platforms to censor at will, it should be possible to sue them for censoring stuff they shouldn't be censoring just as it is for not censoring stuff they should be censoring. No matter how much they like to say they are fReEEeE pRiVAte eNTErpRiSes, they provide de-facto public spaces(public as in accessible to the broad public, not as in government-run) and should be treated as such. They shouldn't have the power to be legislative and judiciary of public communication.
Why? Why should be fight for legal recourse first before we tackle the real problem? (At least in this context, legal recourse for unwarranted service termination can also be useful for things unrelated to scanning of private data, but that's not the point) This sounds like the "step back" in the "two steps forward, one step backwards" ideom.
I'd argue because it would likely be an easier battle and would still win rights and, perhaps, set precedent for the limitations of entities like Google here and elsewhere. The alternative of blocking scanning all together is extremely easy to railroad.
Well what you encountered here is IMHO a problem of power, not a problem with your App, guidelines, your marketing, or whatever. The problem is that a third party has the power to stop your customers from using your software. Many people don't have a problem with that until they are negatively affected by it: It's fine to block [insert whatever kind of shitty software you don't like], it's for the users own good afterall.
You are under apples control on the iOS market. And, in my opinion, that's a bad thing. We should try to denormalize this kind of power.
To answer your question: I don't think you can do anything about that especially since your app(judging form the other comments here on HN) ended up on the wrong side of history.
This situation reminds me of a nice little poem by Martin Niemöller:
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Yeah, that's pretty much a "Karteileiche" though, nobody takes that law seriously. This has less to do with germany being overly restrictive in that domain and more with incompetence: The law says something like "possessing hardware/software suitable for hacking is illegal" those who have written this law probably barely knew what software even is. They wanted to make sure they can get those evil "hackers" convicted but misunderstood the nature of what they are dealing with.
The law not being enforced makes this worse, not better as that means there is no motivation to remove it and it remains available to use to coerce/punish in the future.
