Thanks a lot, this makes a whole lot more contextual awareness for the situation.

Thanks for the detailed explanation about publicly traded companies, but what I wonder is the privately owned ones being forced to sell out, if there is such a thing.

For example, lets say Proton is owned by a few shareholders or just one, and it is not openly traded unless the shareholders make personal agreements to sell out or anything like that. If Google came with a truckload of cash and told these shareholders to sell their shares to Google, can they simply refuse the offer no matter how big is the pile of cash or the benefits of the offer, or do they have to find a legal reason to keep their shares? I mean, even the question sounds stupid and the answer should be “yeah you can just keep your share and run the company however you like, as long as you don’t go public listing”, but with all the concerns about the buyouts talked all around this last few years, the premise looks like it is hard to hold out.

What is this buying out talked about something not escapable if not some legal reorganization is made? It has been being talked about other companies, too, and it sounds like if you have a form of a company, you can’t legally refuse monetary offers from someone to buy your company.

Is there such a legal mechanism that forces an owner to sell out if an offer is made, or is this more about proofing a company against CEO/shareholder personal sell out decision?

Is it hard to interpret running to Russia has the core benefit of not being extradited to the U.S. almost certainly, or at least with higher probability than any other country?

Thank you for the insight! I rather work with logos, icons or other flat and vector drawings usually, a lot of the time upscaling or working up from zero so Krita looked rather irrelevant with how the those types of tools were not readily apparent. I’ll check Inkscpae for this.

Would it be understandable to compare Gimp and Krita to Photoshop and Illustrator? If so, which is closer to which?

While I don’t touch anything Meta (formerly Facebook) at any time, what is the explicit route of data gathering here?

From what I understand, these companies willingly give user data to Facebook, which then utilizes the data to: Use the provided information to match your Facebook user id with the other companies’ user id, so it can understand when you made an activity in the other companies’ sites, games etc. and show you stuff (ads only if you are naive, or propaganda through engineered post and ad visibility jf know at least about Cambridge Analytica) about it when you are in Facebook.

Is this the route user data follows and is utilized? If so, shouldn’t these mentioned other companies including Facebook’s and whatnot’s 3rd party tracking pixels n their own domains, and also sharing your data to themselves directly be the focus of privacy concerns as they “leak” your user data? Doesn’t the most of the blame fall on these other companies, or does the implied blame here that user data transfer is mutual and Facebook forwards these user data from company A to company B in the list, as well?

The catch is in the title. Google will not back a law that will otherwise completely block them, instead of just making things different for them.

Google will comply with the law, but we all know they will do so in the most minimal ways or find loops to exploit it, even.

Dude barged in Lemmy 2 months ago, made 40+ posts with average of 20 comments. I’d consider that performance, translated to Reddit size over 5 years, to earn quite the lower percentile among the posters. So yeah, Reddit is probably sitting on a small fortune thanks to this generous person.

That should be the only way, but I seriously doubt that Reddit admins would keep the links intact in that case. Out of their greed and malice they would probably mess with the Lemmy link, then put the blame narrative on the poster for deleting/making the information unavailable.

It can be a bit annoying like how c/hackernews post only external links with topic titles, but that is the (temporary) cost of freedom and privacy.