Yep. And I’d argue it’s an almost ethical responsibility for those aware of all this to preserve a media archive via piracy. Sort of like those monks that would repeatedly copy old scrolls before they would degrade or whatever.

This is true. What I’m saying is I respect the willingness to ‘do it anyway’ attitude.

Canada didn’t leave the UN.

Would be cool if they said fuck you to the EU.

People kept worrying about Canada breaking a UN rule but Canada said fuck it and did it anyway.

Did this actually happen to you? I’ve been to, and even smoked weed in (discreetly), Germany many times as a tourist without issue. It was just annoying that it was technically illegal…but no one ever attempted to drug test me or ask me about drug use at all.

Is this real legalization like in Canada, or fake legalization like most other places?

If a tourist can’t buy it from a store, fly to a different city/state domestically with it, and then smoke it at a designated airport smoking area outside the terminal… I struggle to see that as full ‘legalization’.

If you are prohibited from doing all those things, it just seems like a different version of prohibition. Step in the right direction though, sure.

But… alcohol should be legal, no? Despite the harm it causes, prohibition simply does not work.

Cannabis can also cause harm (albeit less harm than alcohol) but should also still be legal. And other drugs like fentanyl (arguably) cause more harm than alcohol…but should also be legal.

Prohibition is literally never a realistic solution to any drug or drug problems. Not a single country has ever had success.

I struggle to see Japan as a bastion of freedom lol. Fun place to visit for sure, but between the archaic drug laws and suicide forests I’m not sure they are a society others should be modeling themselves after.

If Google specifically denied tracking that’s definitely misleading, but I’m unable to find a source for it and don’t recall it myself.

Saying that the sites you visit track you would absolutely lead me to believe that search engines sites are included. Since it would not be possible to provide results for the search without knowing what was searched for by the user. And where would they send those results to without knowing the users IP or other form of network address? It just doesn’t make any sense to think a search engine would not know who searched for what, since it is required for them to function.

I always saw Google as a website too. So if I type ‘giant donkey dicks’ into the url/search bar, then Google is obviously going to know my preference for large donkey dicks. Since I googled it.

Or are these hypothetical common folk typing in full urls themselves or something? If it’s auto-filling in any way, that’s thanks to Google and they can only provide it if aware what has been typed so far.

Yep, I never switched from torrents as I never found anything more convenient.

Aww man I thought I found one! Guess I’m back down to zero people.

I don’t understand paying for streaming media at all… but I’m from the before times.

So do you feel the naming was inherently misleading which led you astray? Because incognito mode absolutely kept things ‘sneaky’ in terms of hiding the things I look up from other people who use the same computer. Which is specifically what Google said it would do and showed examples of in TV commercials. And it definitely did (and still does) that.

I’m also struggling to understand what you feel you ‘trusted’ Google on exactly. What did they tell you that you believed but, as it turns out, was not true?

Had you accidentally turned on ‘avoid highways’ by chance? Because the one time that happened to me it was.

I can bitch about chrome all day long… but none of that bitching will be about incognito mode as that was and continues to be an useful feature that did exactly what I expected it to do. Everything it said it did, it did.

Just because people made up their own imaginary ideas about what they think it does isn’t really Google’s fault. If people think snorkels allow them to scuba dive and then drown, I’m not about to blame the snorkel maker that wrote ‘diving googles and snorkel’ on the packaging.

The amount of words needed to fully explain this to tech illiterate idiots would be so many that those idiots would just argue they cannot be expected to read all of it. These people already do this with the terms + conditions documents they agree to.

Incognito mode did every single thing it said it did and behaved exactly as I expected from day one. Is there a single user here who actually was surprised by how it worked? Did anyone honestly think it was like Tor or something? Why? Where did anyone ever get that idea at all?

It seems the whole last decade has been focused on dumbing the Internet down for the dumbest 10% of the population. The Internet was better when it was less inclusive.

I don’t believe it was ever called ‘private mode’, or am I wrong on this?

Which only has value to the corporation if the people driven there watch ads on said page.