Apparently.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8Y3imj6bYP8

GCP? Google Domains? Google Workspaces? Gmail? QUIC?

You can pay all you want and still be the product.

You don’t have to look too hard, though. Here’s one from 2017:

https://twitter.com/SwiftOnSecurity/status/82147538290599116...

Some in the opsec community seem to have had particularly poor takes on the question of extradition: https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/821766035401572352

most of the well known people among those guys have security clearances to be able to work with US gov. which means they are under obligation to report on a regular basis about the people they meet. which means we can say they are part of the "intelligence community" (or if we are less charitable we can call them snitches)

> they are under obligation to report on a regular basis about the people they meet

Intriguing. People with a security clearance are required to give intelligence reports about people they have contact with?

If you have contact with an agent of a foreign power, you're required to report the encounter and what you talked about.

I'm not really sure how agents, or contact, are defined. I think the law is intended to keep IC people honest and forthcoming about foreign attempts to turn people.

(Disclaimer: I have never held a security clearance.)

I find this tweet about how Google approaches web standards illuminating. To quote:

> 1. design a flawed API (it's fine! APIs are hard)

> 2. ship it in the most-used browser, despite objections

> 3. get cross-browser working group to fix the API

> 4. oops, too late, that would break the web

https://twitter.com/Rich_Harris/status/1220412711768666114

>5. Rally a group of developers and PR to bash Webkit as the only one not implementing those flawed API and name it as the new IE.

Too true. Not to mention that many of the APIs Google introduce are prone to tracking and spam.

At least you won't get your Google account banned over bogus copyright claims.

Underrated comment.

Good thing the web is still based on open standards instead of an (advertising) industry trend. We need more viable browser engines, not less.

> Clearly nobody at Apple or Google working on these kinds of features is a parent.

That’s highly unlikely given the number of people working there.

Clearly you haven’t done professional software development before. There are so many big misses.

The kind of changes that Screen Time requires spans the entire platform, which means that it can only be developed incrementally. It’s inevitably going to take years before all the “obvious” loopholes are closed, but it’s not because of some design flaw on Apple’s part.

Not true. The misses are due to the perverse incentives and myopia created by both companies’ monetization strategies. For instance, a child must have an iCloud or gmail account to use the parental control features of each platform, and iOS users can’t whitelist content for YouTube kids except by taking the kid’s device.

YouTube kids is a load of algorithmic content farm generated garbage. There is no trust based system for ranking content by quality (pagerank anyone?). Apple parental control is category specific, limits cannot be set for individual apps, nor can ad hoc categories be created.

Netflix has the same perverse incentives that default to the most addictive, garbage content and no whitelist option. Totally irresponsible and greed driven.

All three companies are dragging their feet, it is hard to tell if it’s due to greed, negligence or both.

Sadly, Amazon is the market leader in 2019 for kid friendly content and parental control options.