I thought the whole concept of FOSS was free as in speech, so I can do what I want with my computer. If the problem is user ignorance about security flaws, address that problem instead. Unless Linux Mint doesn't actually like having users.

My post was not in defense of AWS. In fact, it was simply to point out a flaw in their premise. The content on that plugin's site says that the plugin was intended to show which big tech companies were tracking user activity. AWS did not track user activity on Parler. AWS decided to pressure Parler to apply moderation controls, which they couldn't do such a short period of time, and then booted Parler off. This was in reaction to AWS employees putting pressure on management to do something about what they thought was objectionable. It did not come from AWS tracking user activity on Parler, because that didn't happen. Whether or not AWS response to that employee pressure was correct or incorrect is out of context for my post. Also, and this amazes me that it has to be repeated again and again, the concepts of free speech is a Constitutional right. But the Constitution only specifies what the US Government can or can't do. It has nothing to do with what companies can or can't do with their own resources, wether its servers, websites, buildings, etc. That is handled by regulation, all of which can be challenged in courts.

It's all replaceable, either by one vendor, multiple vendors, or roll your own. Not necessarily "easy" but doable. That's the business value of cloud services. It's a turn-key solution to get started and operate in a dynamically generated environment. It's inconvenient to do it all yourself, and therefore people are happy to pay a provider that does it for them.

Whether or not Amazon has the ability to pull the plug on a "bad" tenant (or a tenant Amazon believes is bad, which is a debatable point) is not really relevant here. I think the point of this extension is to show the end user which "Big Tech" company is getting their data (specifically, user activity tracking). Just because a site is running on AWS, doesn't mean Amazon is getting tracking data from a user visiting that site. In fact, Amazon does not and will not. If the premise of the extension is to show "who is tracking my data", then AWS should not be on the list. If the premise of the extension is "which Big Tech player is involved anywhere in the stack at all, period", then that's a different story. But that's not what is described on https://bigtechdetective.net/ (BTW, that site is now down.... coincidence?)

One premise of this tools is fatally flawed. In their FAQ, they say that one reason a site might be locked is because they are using Amazon Web Services (AWS). That doesn't mean Amazon is getting any of the user's data. Consider AWS like a data center. A company may own a website which runs on AWS, but only that company is in control of what that website does, not AWS. Amazon provides the tools to create virtual servers, but has absolutely no control over what that company does with the server, other than whats stated in AWS terms of use (such as no illegal activity, etc). To say that just because a website runs on AWS means Amazon is collecting user data is completely nonsense and essentially is disinformation.

Isn't this something Microsoft did years ago? Forcing Internet Explorer down everybody's throat, and threatening OEMs that didn't include it? They even went as far as requiring that no competing browser be pre-installed. My... how things come full circle......

As usual, Microsoft finds a way to rip of its customers, again and again and again.... The amazing thing is, people still keep falling for it!!

Just try it mother fuckers!

The potential for abuse of this thing is off the charts. I mean, its even named: PedoHelmet. Problem comes with a complimentary teddy bear.

Are they serious with this? Who cares? It's CD. Software. We're not talking about underwear people. Get over it! As long as the CD is not damaged or unplayable, then who really cares?

As a DB admin myself, I find these "Us vs Them" arguments to be ultimately pointless. A company will choose a database based on the application's needs. If "immediate consistency" is needed they will choose a standard relational database. If "eventual consistency" is acceptable, the company may opt for one of the other "not-so-relational" databases. The fact that there are other options is actually a good thing. The "old guard" needs to find the positives and embrace change, or run the risk of being left behind in an evolving world of technology.

And since it only runs on Windows, its just more reason send Microsoft some more money! Oh wait! I LOOKED at an ASP page earlier. I think I owe Ballmer another quarter....

What about it?

Are you sure that the intent is to obfuscate? There's no other possibility? Maybe shrinking the size of the file transferred to increase performance?

Fine. I'll buy that. But that's a "functionality" thing, not really a "proprietary vs open" thing. Your average user doesn't know or care about that stuff. All they care about is whether or not the website works the way its supposed to.

I think its more along the lines of "WTF now??" It's expasperation... an emotional response to something so utterly stupid and irrelevant that it makes us angry enough to respond. It doesn't help in the long term, but it is relieving in the short term.