Fix the memory leak, maybe? I know, I know, that'll never happen.

Indeed. That's one major reason why I don't like the proposed law.

The laws would mandate content filtering similar to YouTube which is widely known to doing a terrible job at recognizing what is and is not Fair Use.

Not really relevant to YouTube's ContentID system. The EU law would require this kind of system be implemented everywhere, rendering all perfectly legitimate Fair Use reasons moot. Want a platform that supports Fair Use? You'll need to find a site that isn't YouTube or based in Europe or run the risk of being a copyright infringer.

Not to say that what is happening isn't wrong, but is this really a "data leak"? We're talking information that was harvested on apps where users likely gave their consent to have their information sold anyway. I'd call this more of a clear cut case how Facebook is by no means something you should use if you want privacy. Reference.

If someone was depressed in a pre-internet era, the word would likely not get very far outside of the city borders. Today, it's possible someones depression will become known throughout the world thanks to interconnectedness. I wouldn't be surprised if the level of depression is really just the same after all this time, yet the only difference is the technology compared to, say, 50 years ago. I would worry that technology is just a convenient scapegoat.

I think more people need to at least give open source (or whatever you want to call it) projects a try. I've tried a number of projects over the years. Not all open source projects are created equal, but I certainly don't regret trying things like Libre Office. Is it for everyone? No. Should people at least try it and decide for themselves? Yes. It doesn't have to be a whole OS. Small apps work fine.

Um, I hate to break it to you, but there are plenty of single person projects out there. You can find some of them on Patreon for example.

At least I know who the troll is.

It does concern me about some of the smaller sites struggling to survive. If a hypothetical site is barely able to pay the server bills, the last thing they need is an additional $15 charge per year (or more) tacked on just to allow a percentage of users to access their site without having users complain about alarms blaring that it's an unsecured site. I mean, sure, $15 a year doesn't sound like much, but if you're not a major site pulling in hundreds off of ad impressions or subscription fees, that seemingly small fee is going to sting on the bottom line. No matter how you slice it, this is going to raise the barrier for entry for new sites.

This added to what is going on with the destruction of network neutrality in the US is almost like pouring salt on the wound. The number of users being able to reasonably access your site may very well drop, but Mozilla decided that web admins need to add another layer of security that come with fees in the process.

Oh, I get it, you're just trolling. Nevermind.

Well, what other reliable source is there? Slyck is dead and ZeroPaid stopped posting stuff years ago. Until I found out about Freezenet, I thought filesharing news was dead.

You're probably right. That and it isn't spamming TorrentFreak everywhere even though Freezenet beat them to the punch I suppose. What a bummer.

May I ask what was wrong with the original submission of this story? https://slashdot.org/submissio...