Why can't we have nice things instead.

I doubt that would be the reason for their ban. If it is a creative work then in some countries it's automatically copyrighted, but it's not like most would go out of their way to stop it (unlike with like people reacting to other YouTube videos, films, anime, etc).

What type of reaction content? If it wasn't using the minimum amount of copyrighted material needed to comment or being transformative, and was distributing the majority of a work, then at any point a DMCA will nuke em. Google might not think it's worth the risk hosting that reaction content forever.

If your hardware ain't working maybe there's barrier to devs working on it caused by the designer/manufacture. Or we have not paid them enough for it to be worth their time?

Relying on info gathered from the copying of info without asking is also selfish.

No I don't think users "agreed to it" because page 165 of 245 of legalese says Reddit owns the posts. If anyone reading does then why not complain about Reddit, not the users.

Just because you are "bad programmer" does not mean you are a bad programmer.

The total number of countries on Earth is.. depends on who you ask.

It's our hardware so we should be able to select another provider or host our own. Not that I consider ad tracking a "service".

Draw.io says it will use Apache but "with an extra line forbidding usage (...)". It is not the normal Apache license. The extra line is a big difference in principle.

I hate scamming people but I think that should be fixed in another way.

It seems "open source" means different things for different people.

If you could see the code but were not allowed to redistribute it then I'd call it "source-available".. but you can redistribute the code, in this unusual case.

Forbidding reselling to any degree makes it "non-free" (as in freedom), which is the important part. The term "open source" was created to speak about "free software" without the moral or political aspects of user freedom.

Crazy to see the thread of people using "open source" differently. The term "open source" may have successed in replacing the older term "free software" (in popularity) but apparently it can also fail to be clear. "Open" can mean various degrees of openess, or lack thereof in this case.

It's free as in free food but adding an extra line to restrict how it can be used, or with who, makes it non-free software (free as in freedom).

Later or Agree
No Disagree option

A rapist mentality.

I beseech you god of Irony, make it so Amazon workers can vote him out of office.

Do most technical Windows users know about Recall? Or is this the case of them not caring?

Tis but a symptom of the user's click-rate. Faces are the "shiny keys" for humans.

Totally uncool man.

Not sure what I could have expected from it back then. I just recall it being recommended online and ended up just using Win Media player (with the cool graphical effects).

I think I tried Winamp back in the day but never really understood it.

One has to admit it's good that they released the source code (while it was available) so users can learn what their software is actually doing on their computer. Better for yourself as a dev too: you will probably avoid including other people's work in yours. However, wanting contributions while retaining the exclusive right to distribute the software is anti-collaborative. I'm reluctant to say it might as well be proprietary again but since it doesn't meet the standard of software freedom then it's equally not worth trying on my computer.

I find the negatives detract from the benefits too much, usually. Like having your arm cut off and then receiving lovemaking: I am no longer in the mood.