This has been Google's M.O. for many years now. Scrape creator's content, then cut them out. They do this with images/photography, news, recipes -- anything they can throw an ad in front of... Google is DESTROYING original content. Plain and simple.

If you use Edge (as well as some of their apps) you generate personal info for Microsoft to collect, eyeballs on ads they can display. That is how tech companies are making money now. The tech companies that are perceived as "good". Let's face it -- all the folks with older PCs/laptops, holding onto them and updating to Windows 10/11 for free. That's great. But MS has got to get revenue out of developing/supporting their operating system somehow. Not an excuse for the MANNER in which they seem to be promoting their browser, in this instance. But that's their motivation.

And the concentration of power by the federal govt marches on... Discuss those details, sheeple!

What's to keep unscrupulous types from "branding" stuff that is not theirs? There are already loads of people/businesses claiming rights over images that they do not have...

One thing I could see happening, if "Truth" did not reserve the right to delete criticism, is that Trump-haters would spam the site in an attempt to make it unusable. In fact, I cannot imagine this NOT happening. So maybe we should wait and see before we judge the site and its intentions. More options and outlets online.... usually a good thing. If it turns out to be severely biased, it will be obvious. If not, great.

Liberal, Conservative, whatever... if you tolerate censorship in any form, this leads to rigid social and political fragmentation -- and eventually violence. Learn from history. Open internet is less dangerous than the alternative.

That's the real issue. Are we not Americans?

These are things a healthy company/nation/people invest in. Aspirations are important for all of us.

They were just joking.
Get it?

However, by complaining about it you have
broken our terms of usage policy, and we
have therefore deleted your account.

As a public service we have leaked your name,
address and phone number to ANTIFA --
hopefully they can WOKE you up.

Have a nice day.

Falkon

This is a browser for KDE, but you just need QT to run it....

ONLY shortcoming I have encontered is a lack of plugin support.
However, it does come with an ad blocker built in.

MUCH faster startup and lightweight than Chrome/Chromium/Firefox.
Doesn't track users for ads (or whatever...)

Could Linux community rally support around it?
Be great if we did.

I do a lot of hacking/tweaking of many apps,
but I don't have the skill to code an API for plugins,
otherwise I would try to contribute.

I'm way over Google's "do no evil" line of bullshit.
And Firefox is slow and political :-(

PS
Absolute Linux

I realize Getty does not seem to represent "the little guy"... but
Google knows how the internet works, artists and publishers do not?

Let's get real. Google exists because they serve ads.
An artist, photographer, publisher exists online because they serve ads,
or entice interested parties to learn more about them.
How else do you sell or generate revenue on the internet?
Some unknown is supposed to put up a paywall?

One of the many snarky comments from folks who do not know how to read, or willfully read what they want to see. Budget went up to 19.5 billion. Was earlier proposed 19.1. Last year was 19.3.

Funding is up. Perhaps the article was not well-worded, but for sure, by some, it was poorly read. The NASA budget was 19.3 billion for 2017, 19.5 billion for 2018. Trump was originally going to go with 19.1 billion but that was bumped up to the 19.5. Seems some folks just need to be sarcastic, and will twist the truth to do it. Doesn't it ever get old?

I truly dislike Getty due to the fact that they use an ENORMOUS number of public domain images, and try to pass themselves off as having ownership rights. It is selfish and disgusting. And there should be a way to punish entities who do this. (You might be surprised how many places do this, including taxpayer funded museums here in the USA...)
However, the Library of Congress page of "Carol M. Highsmith - Rights and Restrictions Information" at:
https://www.loc.gov/rr/print/r...
States:
"Carol M. Highsmith's photographs are in the public domain."

The article that appears on PDNPULSE:
http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/...
"Highsmith says she never abandoned her copyrights to the images. She says the Library of Congress had agreed to notify users of the images that she is the author, and that users must credit her."

If the images are public domain, she did not retain the right to enforce accreditation.
What she is describing would be equivalent to a Creative Commons Attribution License.
http://opendefinition.org/lice...

Part of the reason for a cc-by license is to stop greedy folks from reselling and trying to "own" what would otherwise be public domain works. Of course, those of us who work at organizing, editing and adding our own works to the public domain on sites such as my wpclipart.com, cannot touch anything with a cc-by license.

What would be much better is if there was a legal mechanism to punish people for falsely claiming rights/ownership of images.
Without it, greedy companies/entities are continually narrowing what is available in the public domain.

Copyright plea -- we're not rich enough!
Solution: Make copyright on music good for one year.
Don't allow any unauthorized use in that time. After that it's all public domain.
Music is very trend-oriented, artists can make plenty in a year plus performance for many, many years.

A few other thoughts:
Do we really owe the grand-kids of artists a living?
Why must artists be paid in-perpetuity, while the rest of us schmucks that often make concrete, useful things get paid wage or by the hour?
If I build someone a nice picnic table, do I expect them to pay me every time one of the buyer's friends uses it?