ThenThreeMore

70 k = -203 c, -333 f

Sync is a one time payment for ad-free. It’s ultra that is subscription which has a load of bumph you don’t need and ad-free as well.

Lol yeah I should have proof read that.

Fixed now.

Not really a good analogy, because the age at which you can drink is based on where you are, not in where you were born etc. An American 18 year old could go to Canada or well pretty much anywhere else in the world and they can get as drunk as they like.

Oh absolutely. I just think that there’s a danger that people will think if the Tories are out of power all of these kinds of proposals will just disappear.

I want off Mr Gove’s wild ride.

Oh yeah, because authoritarianism doesn’t give large chunks of the labour party massive hard ons too.

If they’d had their way all our biometrics would be on a database and we’d have to have our id cards with us at all times.

It’s usually younger drivers (17-20) that would have it. It used to be so you could get your insurance cheaper, but companies being companies has meant that a lot won’t even insure younger drivers without it now, and charge double what they used to.

If the fine was 4% of global revenue every month, sure

Lol oh yeah, good point.

The profit they’d need to make off EU users would need to increase by over $4.66 billion to make a 4% fine on of global revenue.

Even if every single person in the EU (including babies and anyone who doesn’t have a meta account) took up the paid tier it wouldn’t offset a 4% fine on global revenue. They’d need it make $10 profit extra per person per month. Their price is €10 (just over 10 USD) a month. Subtract from that 20% tax and another let’s say 5% for card handling fees and their general costs gives them €7.50. The you need to subtract from that what they were making off users before as we’re looking at increase.

GDPR caps out at 4% of global turnover. Which is still a monumental amount of money.

It’s because it’s the data protection act which is the UK implementation of GDPR.

So Clearview would have been subject to GDPR if it sold its services to UK police or government authorities or commercial entities, but because it doesn’t, it can do whatever the hell it wants with UK people’s data - this is at best puzzling, at worst nonsensical.

While on an individual law level it’s extremely frustrating the article has a quote which makes perfect sense.

it is not for one government to seek to bind or control the activities of another sovereign state

If that wasn’t a concept in law any country could pass any law in and expect it to apply internationally.

Only if you’re doing so in an official governmental capacity for your country.

The article is basically that they won the appeal because they only provide services to governments and law enforcement (having previously withdrawn their services to businesses because they lost a lawsuit in the USA)

Problem is people expect a much richer media experience than SMS.

It would be really weird to SMS some to say oh check your emails I sent you a cool meme.