| ▲ | plantain 15 hours ago |
| It drives me insane when in Europe the link between Google Search and Google Maps is broken and I often have to copy paste an address between the two. Thanks EU, what if I like Google's integrations? |
|
| ▲ | phiresky 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The EU told them they can not by default prefer their own maps product when linking from their search product, they have to allow the user to choose. They could have simply added a selector when a user first clicks on the maps preview in the search result, and then remembered it on device or across that user's account. But of course, then the user could choose a competitor's product and Google would have to honor it. That would be horrible, so instead they just made the user experience worse for everyone and elegantly made people blame the EU. |
| |
| ▲ | esterna 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I wonder if the EU will someday figure out a patch for this "Deteriorate everyone's user experience in a way that is technically compliant and blame the EU" behavioural exploit... | | |
| ▲ | poloniculmov 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm blaming Google for this, but most people just don't know why it happens. Probably they'll end up mandating that Google must show a notice with the reason and it will be implemented in the worst possible way. All of these hissy fits Google and Apple are throwing are just making me wanting to use them less and less and I'm doing my best to explain how tech companies are doing malicious compliance to others. | | |
| ▲ | pojzon an hour ago | parent [-] | | How about EU starts legistlating towards a competitive market and creates its own web search Tech Giant ? So Google is forced to take competitor to account or will be pushed out of the market ? No? Better to complain and do nothing positive? Welcome to EU Parliment. |
| |
| ▲ | KronisLV 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yeah, it's very overpowered and should be nerfed - they still haven't patched the cookie consent dialogs out. To expand upon the silly comment a bit, not sure about this particular initiative, but to me it very much feels like something that should be configurable at browser level, instead of half-assed dark-pattern-filled JS dialogs: https://killthecookiebanner.eu/ | |
| ▲ | stymaar 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The European Commission is way too pro-business for that, even when the said businesses are parasitic actors who don't even pay taxes in the EU. | | |
| ▲ | spwa4 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Plus that just isn't how governments work. Governments work by imposing costs on others. They do not build. | | |
| ▲ | stymaar 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | What does it has to do with the topic? And saying “governments do not build” is a crazy antihistorical take: many things, from the space industry to the telco one were built by governments, as well as the energy and transport sectors in many countries. For the past 50-ish years the West convinced itself that government should not build, and as a result we're suffering from a slow collapse of basic infrastructures. Meanwhile, in China and the Gulf, government kept building and the world's center of gravity steadily keeps moving eastwards. | |
| ▲ | TheHalc 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "What have the Romans ever done for us?" |
|
| |
| ▲ | nolok 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's fine + obligation to fix, and daily fine until fixed, and higher fine if you do it again. I know that sounds like it comes from "it will never work", but that's how active directory, office file format, etc ... got opened, and in a case more similar to here that's how windows n and decoupling of media and internet component from windows internals happened. The issue is, yes, it takes time. Another issue, purely PR, is that yes the EU gets attacked repeatedly by people trying to match "respect the law of the market or leave" with "the EU tax US companies because they can't compete". | | |
| ▲ | BrenBarn 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | > It's fine + obligation to fix, and daily fine until fixed, and higher fine if you do it again. The important proviso is that the penalties need to (on some non-geological timescale) get high enough that the offender is no longer capable of operating. That could mean the fines reach $500 billion, or it could mean the company is barred from operating in the EU, or it could mean people get arrested and assets are seized. But unless the penalties become crippling, it won't matter. It needs to reach a point where the downsides of noncompliance are actually greater than the benefits. | | |
| ▲ | esterna 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | NIS2 allows for the arrest of managers in case of cybersecurity incidents resulting from negligence. I think it's a step in the right direction, but we'll have to see how it plays out. | |
| ▲ | nolok 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In the EU they like the "daily fine until fixed". It's how Microsoft bowed down. But unlike the story some on HN and in the US like to think, US tech companies don't ever get there except rare exception, they know the game. |
|
| |
| ▲ | ukoki 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The solution is to mandate that websites are built for browsers/devices as much as they are for humans. That way you never see a cookie banner because you've set up your device to never accept marketing cookies; A Google Maps link clicks through to Google Maps because you told your browser Google Maps was your preferred online mapping tool. | |
| ▲ | brador 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The corrective force should be market competition, but Google is a monopoly not a monopoly with so many moats it might as well be a monopoly. They also buy up the competition before it gets a chance as is the way now. | | |
| ▲ | esterna 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why should be? I think it is abundantly clear by now that market competition alone will not fix this. Though that does not stop people from claiming "Yes that failed and people suffered/died, but that was not real capitalism! If only we had a real free market, it would have been better!" |
|
| |
| ▲ | brainwad 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The specific problem with Maps is that Google _can't_ deep link to other providers except by lat-lng or address, both of which throw away the actual context of the PoI in the common case of searching for PoIs. Well, it could perhaps deep-link to OSM-based maps, since their map data is open... but Google, as a proprietary map maker, probably treats OSM data as radioactive. | | |
| ▲ | bmordue 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | They could make available a URI using the geo: scheme, but the hacky ways of including a POI as part of a geo: URI (ie using a query string) feel generally unsatisfactory. |
| |
| ▲ | bko 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Google measures latency at microseconds.100 ms ≈ 0.2% fewer searches. Google tracks this very closely and invests a lot as that's the operational life blood of the company. You can make more money by simply making search easier. To save "it's easy" and Google chooses to nuke their own products for... I don't know what, stick it the European regulators, strikes me as incorrect. It's because it's incredibly hard to navigate this arbitrary punative regulatory framework. No one would use the other maps because other maps are worse. As much as euro regulators hem and haw about lack of competition, it's precisely these types of dictats that make Europe not have any viable competitors in tech. | | |
| ▲ | piyuv 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Google also makes money by making search worse. https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/ | | |
| ▲ | bko 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | KronisLV 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | I often hate how loaded/incendiary Ed Zitron's tone is and don't like some of his takes, but I wouldn't call it "some random blog". I run a random blog, that guy's closer to being a proper journalist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Zitron | | |
| ▲ | bko 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Referencing a blog is fine. But when you're on a forum discussing ideas just forwarding a blog link is bad taste. Summarize the key arguments. Do some work. It's like if someone is arguing free markets and I just provide a link to a WSJ editorial. It's rude, requires no work on the sender and imposes work on the receiver to read and synthesize and respond to the argument. I see this occasionally where someone will just have an LLM generate a response (which it will happily do for any topic taking any position) and just passing it off. | | |
| ▲ | KronisLV 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Summarize the key arguments. Do some work. I'd still take at least a blog post with relevant information over nothing, but yeah, that is fair. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | cwillu 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > No one would use the other maps because other maps are worse. Do you realize how many commercial driving apps are based around OSM data? |
| |
| ▲ | nolok 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's malicious compliance with the intent of having the users misunderstand what's happening (that you don't have to do that but do it on purpose, and instead blame the law protecting them). And eh, it works for the cookie banner so why change the strategy ? The comment you're answering to prove it still works. As long as people can't be bothered to think and inform themselves for a second about it, they won't stop. Same with the purposefully annoying and unclear and user hostile 'gdpr popup' about third party consent. I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm saying from Google POV that's the correct move given their intent, the issue then become people like parent. | | |
| ▲ | maccard 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well no, the cookie banner is a well intentioned but flawed and poorly designed law. Any law that is that technically specific but relies on people without an understanding of how it works is doomed to repeat the same fate. The eu should have seen prop 65 and not sleepwalked back into it. | | |
| ▲ | nolok 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 1. The EU works on intent of the law rather than specific wording and precedence. 2. The law is a very simple "if you want to do it, you have to make sure they know", intended to force information without creating excessive administrative / legal / tech burden, please inform me about what other way you would present it that would reach the goal without being subject to malicious compliance ? | | |
| ▲ | maccard 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | I understand. I'm generally a proponent of the spirit of the law rather than the wording of the law, and I've argued that is how the EU works here in the past. I think GDPR is a much, much better attempt at solving the problem, and has made meaningful change in tech industries. The ePrivacy directive just added pseudo-mandatory popups to every company without a technical lawyer. | | |
| ▲ | spwa4 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why? The whole point of the GPDR was to prevent medical information being used for insurance and all sorts of purposes. Then come the lists of what exceptions are approved. Your medical info is used for divorces (anything involving court cases, anything involving criminal law), the police has access to it, your mayor has access to it, tax departments have access to it (think you can not pay tax and pay for your kid's cancer treatment instead? In Europe, think again). Insurance (if you get treatment for getting hurt in traffic your car insurance goes up). Unemployment (if you get treated for anything drug-related ...). Hospitals and doctors can use your medical information without your permission (for billing, for other treatments, for deciding if you should be interned, ...). And so on and so forth. Oh and there are even silent exceptions. You see, YOU can't sue anyone under the GPDR. You can only ask a specific "supervisory authority" (you can't even choose which one) They are under control of the executive, and so it is in most cases the currently elected party that decides if your GPDR complaint does anything, NOT the courts. Not the police. Not the public prosecutor. None of that. And it's even closed on the back end: you don't agree with these "supervisory authority"'s actions? Doesn't matter if you're complainant or defendant. You can't sue them either. You can't get a judge on your case, only appointed politicians. There are even organizations that the GPDR supposedly applies to that have their own supervisory authority. Interpol violated your rights? No worries, file your complaint here in this building. You know, the building with "Interpol" on it in big letters. So really, we do not even know the full list of exceptions. More generally, the GPDR was supposed to prevent further encroachment of all sorts of organizations on privacy, with a big focus on medical data. It has achieved the opposite of that. FOR NOW (and not in every country) the only way to get a private medical file is to only use private medical care. For now that is still possible. It's like the DMA (Digital Markets Act). Prevents organizations from using control of the OS to implement policy. There's a few exceptions though. Google gets an exception. Apple gets an exception. Through specific deals made with these organizations and the EU commissioner of Nobody seems to have thought to scream into the commissions face: "THEN WHAT'S THE POINT?". Well, who made those deals? Thierry Breton. He currently serves as a remunerated member of Bank of America’s Global Advisory Council (who have huge investments in Alphabet and Apple). Yeah, I get why you want to focus on the intent only and not on what practically happened. Theory and practice are very, very different and the EU is incredibly pro-business and uses their power to literally grant billionaires exceptions to laws. That's how Goldman Sachs got it's first communist president (Barosso, who saved Goldman Sachs as president of the EU commission). That's reality, but of course the intent is thoroughly disguised, and you don't want to talk about the difference. | | |
| ▲ | nolok 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Gdpr whole point was about insurance? Can you please diversify your news source and educate yourself? I didn't even bother to read your pamphlet of a comment after seeing such an obviously wrong first sentence | | |
| ▲ | spwa4 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | No it was about privacy. Specifically given as an example in the actual law, privacy of medical data FROM insurance companies. But of course privacy from everyone. The goal was not even remotely achieved, and this was 100% on purpose. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | tchalla 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There a reason why we have courts. Laws aren’t algorithms despite what the tech world wet dream might want them to be. | |
| ▲ | watwut 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Then again, the very same people complain about GDPR not being technically super specific. At some point we have to accept the pattern. People with ideological objections against any limits at all will try to frame any regulation as stupid, regardless of what is in it. |
| |
| ▲ | darkwater 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, but by the time you are sued and fined into compliance again, you already made a ton of money to pay 10x the next fine. | | |
| ▲ | nolok 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes and no, it's true now but the EU fines are not just "you did that" but "you did that we're going to assume you're going to be better and if you do again next time it will really hurt". Which I think is a fair point of view. You might still answer too little to late, but given that we're at the starting point to a massive sovereignty push here thanks to the current US admin being proved as a possibility rather than a novelty, I think this matters a lot. |
|
| |
| ▲ | patrickmcnamara 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They could also just have their maps and others show in the results as normal. | | |
| ▲ | brainwad 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | That would suck, though? Showing places on a map makes so much more sense than burying them in a list of webpages. |
| |
| ▲ | HeavyStorm 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | ~don't~ be evil | |
| ▲ | Hamuko 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Google really sucks at giving users a choice. The Gmail app on iOS has a browser selector dialog, which asks if you want to open a link in an email in Chrome or Safari. Despite the fact that you can change your default browser in iOS settings if you really want to use Chrome. And even if you choose Safari and don’t ask it to remind you every time, it will still prompt you again later if you’d like to switch to Chrome this time. Couldn’t I just pick Safari and you respect that choice until I say otherwise? I do wonder if people using Chrome on iOS face the same issue, or if Google respects your browser of choice a bit more if it’s their browser. | |
| ▲ | chrisjj 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Probably every Google team has an enshittification expert. |
|
|
| ▲ | atwrk 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is intended to drive you insane on purpose. It is just malicious compliance intended to make users blame the anti-monopoly regulators instead of the monopolists. This is a corporation with tens of thousands of software developers. If they wanted to do better, they could. As always: If the UI is bad for you, that probably means that particular implementation is good for the corporation. |
|
| ▲ | cromka 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What drives you nuts is Google's malicious compliance and your ignorance: what EU forbidden is defaulting to it in a way that they can't be decoupled. What Google was allowed to do was adding a option to enable it. They didn't. That's specifically to piss you off on EU. |
|
| ▲ | dns_snek 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why are you blaming the EU and not Google's malicious compliance? They could simply ask you which map provider you'd like to use. |
| |
| ▲ | kandros 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Nobody is forcing me to use Google search, regardless of all the browser and search engine selection clown show, so much wasted money and time for nonexisting problem | |
| ▲ | f6v 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > They could simply ask you which map provider you'd like to use. Yeah that's why EU isn't producing capable tech competitors. If other map services want my business they need to work on that. Instead, someone who built a search infrastructure is supposed to do a free promotion for competitors. | | |
| ▲ | bilekas 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Yeah that's why EU isn't producing capable tech competitors. Actually its how the EU avoids monopolization. > If other map services want my business they need to work on that. Yeah.. Because a startup is going to meaningfully compete against a company who uses forced internal integrations? DropBox is a good example I heard about recently, iCloud, OneDrive, lesser products maybe, was able to basically make Drop box irrelevant because of in-house integration with systems. | |
| ▲ | Gud 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There are many amazing tech companies in Europe. Siemens, Sulzer, ABB, Rolls Royce and so on. Or perhaps you meant advertising companies like Google and Meta when you said "tech"? | | |
| ▲ | f6v 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's kind of obvious that when someone says "Europe can't into tech" what they mean is when the EU officials fly to the US and beg "Please give us Mythos access". |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | mrtksn 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I share the frustration but maybe if Google hadn't gained a monopoly status Google Maps wouldn’t have been in its current sorry state. My assessment is that EU is doing too little too late, the fine should have been something like 20B and used towards creating a non-profit, open and extendable map service ideally with the people who already do great mapping tech that don't show up in Google search results at the top. EU is too vanilla, too unopinionated towards the tech, they go over the problem after the damage is done, take the money for themselves and force a non-solution that doesn't fix the problem and often makes it worse because they leave the implementation to the convicts who make sure to make it maliciously compliant. |
| |
| ▲ | f6v 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > if Google hadn't gained a monopoly status Google Maps wouldn’t have been in its current sorry state What's up with Google Maps? It's great for me. | | |
| ▲ | mrtksn 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | On mobile its navigation is terrible, takes you into strange routes that might be technically faster but are hard to drive at or sometimes non-existent. Sometimes tries to be smart, makes everything worse. i.e. suggest a route that it says its 5 min faster and shows no traffic and you find out that there's no traffic because of a road closure further ahead. The UI when driving is not as good as the competition. I only use it because it has superior business listings with decent reviews and photos. On desktop the web app is jittery, occasional freezing of UI, buttons stop working(most often the street view figure just doesn't show the available street view or would refuse being dropped at a location). Textures wouldn't load, sometimes will downgrade the UI to non-webgl version. Also, businesses are often frustrated when it comes to changing their address, no proper support exists to fix mistakes or do updates. I would loved if EU forced Google to open its maps business data for a year for download so competing services can achieve parity in this regard. After all, Google has this data because its a monopoly - people simply uploaded their photos and reviews to Google Maps because most people use it because Google forced it down the throat of everybody. Ah, also Google is pretty evil when it comes to maps. They jacked up the API prices to ridiculous levels once the become the absolute dominant service and they also tried to make iPhone undesirable by not making their Google Maps app in some countries when Apple screwed up with Apple maps and Apple maps was practically useless outside the US. | | |
| ▲ | nolok 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | It was a not specified but clearly meant part of his question that it's asking in the context of "... that could be tied to decoupling". Eg this has nothing to do and thus can't be hand-wavy blamed on for things like "On mobile its navigation is terrible, takes you into strange routes that might be technically faster but are hard to drive at or sometimes non-existent. Sometimes tries to be smart, makes everything worse. i.e. suggest a route that it says its 5 min faster and shows no traffic and you find out that there's no traffic because of a road closure further ahead. The UI when driving is not as good as the competition. I only use it because it has superior business listings with decent reviews and photos." | | |
| ▲ | mrtksn 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's the same thing with Internet Explorer, they can get away with low quality and orders of magnitude prices increases and restrictions on the API because they can and they can because of the monopoly. Early decoupling could have allowed competition which might have had good data, more open or more fairly priced api, better UI and navigation since it could have made commercial sense to invest in these things. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nolok 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Eh, on the other hand the EU has now effectively forced usb-c for devices after apple refused to play it clean for years and they still got people who complained (how dare the regulator be opiniated toward tech !). The EU loves to play it the european way, and while on the surface it seems "oh that means regulations" in reality it's a "figure it out yourselves and please behave like adult, we don't want to deal with that" and we ask for some sort of regulatory association or whatever that we can refer to to talk to them all. It's worked in a ton of industries including ones where we have no moat but somehow tech companies are always incapable to behave. At least the US ones, eg for the phone thing it ended up being Samsung who told the EU "hey I've been playing ball for years and Apple isn't , make them or I stop too". | | |
|
|
| ▲ | plufz 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Im sure you are right, but I’m not sure what you mean. I can search for an address fine in search and I get an embedded map that I can click to open Google Maps. How does it work in the US? |
| |
| ▲ | arka2147483647 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Does not work for me. Presumably there is some popup you have to accept somewhere for it to work. | | |
| ▲ | disgruntledphd2 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you click on the address result (the button in the map), it will normally work. Mostly tested on Firefox on Mac in the EU. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | geokon 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think this is a larger web-standards problem. There is no standard clickable "link" for physical locations. There is no URL-equivalent you can send to someone, they click it, it open up their map viewer of choice. You can send Lat Lon coordinates and then have the recipient copy and paste them. It generally works though there isn't a standard format and no service will make it clickable like an email address, so the whole process remains clunky. When you "Share" a location in Google Maps or OSMand, you get back a URL link to their service and not an service agnostic "link" to the geographic location. |
| |
| ▲ | master-lincoln 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | There is a standard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo_URI_scheme I have it working on my Android phone. It's clickable links that open my map app of choice (or rather a selection dialog). It's just that the big players do not want to use it. | | |
| ▲ | bmordue 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm a bit surprised this doesn't have more traction. It doesn't seem to have been designed with POIs in mind, which is unfortunately a limitation. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | rnnr 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| US's DoJ fined Microsoft for bundling a web browser into its own OS. EU is the apprentice. |
| |
| ▲ | TeMPOraL 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | What's surprising here is that people still cheer on this, but no one is suggesting to do the same on mobile today. I honestly am confused by this. Obviously, the current situation warrants it 100x as much. | | |
| ▲ | NekkoDroid 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | > but no one is suggesting to do the same on mobile today. I am unsure what you you mean with this? If you are talking about choosing a different browser on mobile I will point you to the DMA Browser Choice Screen page for Android[1], it has been a thing for a while as far as I can remember. [1]: https://www.android.com/choicescreen/dma/browser/ | | |
| ▲ | TeMPOraL 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | AFAIK it doesn't affect the System Webview, and IIRC Microsoft was in hot water not merely over the IE the app, but rather over embedded browsers. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | ricardobayes 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If you click the "address" link in the Google Maps sidebox in Google Search it will show you on Google Maps -> even in EU. |
|
| ▲ | vphpersson 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| After I noticed the Maps button no longer showed up, I installed a browser extension called "Google Search Maps Button". I haven't had any problem since then. (Or even better, make one with AI to avoid potential security concerns) |
|
| ▲ | beAbU 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| When I search for a place on google, and I click on the 'directions' button, I'm taken to maps, ready start navigation. I'm in Ireland. What's your experience? |
|
| ▲ | 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | whateverboat 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Google can give you an option to set in your settings which maps can be linked directly, and they can provide an API for map providers. |
|
| ▲ | baxtr 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| similar with video. No, I don't want to watch the Facebook video, I want the YouTube version! |
|
| ▲ | globular-toast 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Instead of going insane, why not try to think about how to solve this problem? With the correct markup, your browser could recognise the address as a physical location and ask you how you would like to handle the address. You would choose Google Maps. We need to stop being so helpless. A proper user agent should be able to do what you want it to. |
|
| ▲ | radres 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Good god. That was an EU thing? |
| |
| ▲ | RugnirViking 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | as with all of these laws, its EU writing a reasonable law, and the companies throwing their toys out the pram and complying as maliciously as possible |
|
|
| ▲ | ktallett 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is unrelated to Google's apps being integrated and working together which should not be affected by that. |
|
| ▲ | ta8903 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And I hate when someone sends me a goo.gl link, which I need to first open in a browser and then open in my maps app just to be able to see the coordinates they're sending me. |
|
| ▲ | kandros 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| yes, everybody lose here |
|
| ▲ | surgical_fire 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| You are thanking the wrong entity. You should thank Google for their shitty product due to malicious compliance. A daily reminder that they don't care about their users. |