realitaetsverlust

That user agent would make them easily identifiable and therefore blockable. It’s more likely that they are trying to hide as a legitimate user.

I would expect AI scrapers to fake a windows user-agent tbh.

This is what too much windows does to your brain kids.

That isn’t entirely true. While a phone without a SIM can still listen to broadcasts, it never registers as a subscriber because It’s missing a IMSI. So no, without a SIM you are indeed invisible to carriers. It’s a bit like screaming into the woods - someone might hear you if you do that, but if he doesn’t scream back, you have no idea he’s there.

The only exception to this if you’re actively calling emergency services - in that case, your phone will attempt an emergency attach to any network it can find, which is the point where the carrier of that network could see your IMEI. However, apart from that, you are indeed completely invisible without a SIM card.

Not having a SIM-Card in your phone is like having a tank without a main gun - it drives, but it can’t really do what it’s supposed to do. I don’t think that it’s a good idea. Also, not having a SIM-Card doesn’t make you invisible - only airplane mode really does that. Without some kind of network connectivity, you have an expensive, glorified brick that can make photos, play games and lets you listen to offline music.

Also, I’m wondering what exactly you’re trying to achive. Get a private OS like graphene, don’t install any google services, have anti-tracking protection installed into the browser (or use a safe and sane browser by default) and you’re good.

Not having a SIM doesn’t do anything for you except hiding from your carrier, however, if your threat model involves you being worried by being tracked by your carrier (and by extension, the feds), you’re in really hot water already and you’re probably better off with detaching yourself from the modern world.

Was? Die Jugendorganisation einer vom rechtsextremen Flügel dominierten Partei ist ebenso rechtsextrem?

Ja leck mich am Arsch wer hätte das nur geahnt.

Of course it doesn’t disprove that, I never said it was, infact, I stated quite the opposite. However, the fact that they were handing out refunds in cases where games were just outright broken or a scam proves that they have been on the consumer side. Just look at what bethesda did with FO76, where they actually denied refunds for that game when it was obvious it was a shitshow.

Again, I’m not saying that it was a great move from steam to not have a refund window, but claiming they were “abusing their power” when “no refunds” is basically the default for american companies (where refunds are not legally mandated, but each merchant can set his own refund period) is just stupid.

That is not true. I know this because I had one case where I did get a refund for a game called “War Z” - I also found an article that explains that the game was pulled by valve and they have indeed offered refunds: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/how-not-to-launch-a-video-game-starring-i-the-war-z-i-

On the same site, I also found this article talking about a ubisoft game that was pulled: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/report-ubisoft-offering-refunds-on-i-from-dust-i-through-steam

Now, it’s debateable if this was a valve or a ubisoft decision - however, knowing ubisoft, I’d say they were pressured by valve to give in lmao.

I’ve also found this article on polygon that talks about another Early Access Title that was pulled by valve and refunded to buyers because it was shit: https://www.polygon.com/2014/5/6/5686826/earth-year-2066-refund-steam-early-access/

And that’s just what I found with a few minutes of research. I’m fairly confident if I search some more, I’ll find much more of those cases.

So yes, while the stance back then was “all purchases are final”, you were absolutely able to get your money back if the game was truly broken and unplayable. Don’t get me wrong, the current rule is significantly better, but claiming that steam hasn’t been on customers side back then is just straightup wrong.

The point here is probably to get “rainbolt” into the title. He could also write “me looking like a cheater for X minutes” but that would not include rainbolt.

In the end, this is just search optimization.

I don’t think you understand what is being decided here. This isn’t about making legal what other countries are already doing, this is creating the framework for countries to introduce this kind of shit legally.

only voluntary … No chat app is going to voluntarily add it

To cite bender from futurama:

Hahahahahhahaha.

Oh wait, you’re serious? Let me laugh even harder.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Not sure if you’ve noticed, but “voluntary” usually results in mandatory after a while. We had this happen so often already. Remember the “Voluntary” Code of Conduct on hate speech in the EU? Yeah that started out as voluntary - then there was the DSA, digital services act, which uses the “voluntary” code of conduct as the baseline of determining if they are compliant. So the thing that started out voluntary is not effectively mandatory.

Or, in the US, there was the REAL ID system which was a voluntary system aswell - well, until it wasn’t because it is now required to board flights or you’ll be denied entry into certain federal facilities if you don’t have it.

So no - voluntary isn’t voluntary for long. There is usually mission creep which, at some point, makes it mandatory.

and even if they did you can easily switch to a chat app that doesn’t, which isn’t illegal

Very weak argument, as messaging apps are only popular if people use them - and we know exactly how hard that is for most people. Whatsapp has been shitting on people for years and still it’s the most popular messaging app.

Just because there are a bunch of fascists trying to implement it doesn’t mean the entire EU is working against the general population.

That is not the point. The problem isn’t whether people pushing it are “fascists”, it’s that the policy is structurally dangerous because it can be used by fascists in the future. Once the framework is in place, changing the rules becomes a matter of weeks.

Of course “the entire EU” isn’t acting in bad faith. But harmful laws don’t require bad intent or unanimous malice. They only require a majority that underestimates long-term consequences. And please remember that this would not be the first badly thought out law they had passed.

In germany, there is a saying which roughly translates to: “The opposite of well done is well meant”.

Hate to break it to you, must most member states are supporting chat control by now

https://fightchatcontrol.eu/

Counterpoint: Chat Control

Steam has had this power for ages tho and never abused it to the disadvantage of customers.

Supporting companies that don’t shit on consumers is equally important as boycotting companies that do.

I mean, everyone knew that after the three day special operation became a yearlong war lmao.

Dachte ich mir auch. Allgemein, Friedenspreis von fucking FIFA …