I think this question concedes that there is some possibility that one could experience an incorrect puberty.
Given the definition of maturity is being fully grown, this comes across as an inherently unhelpful thing to ask. If we say “only once someone is fully grown they are able to determine if they experienced the incorrect puberty” then this makes it impossible to help children who are going to experience the incorrect puberty. Unless we have some way to determine a child is trans without any input from them, there becomes no way to help them.
The possibility of being unable to help people is not an excuse for hurting them or others. Generally if you can't know the correct action than you should stick to the status quo.
What's next, gene therapy because the embryo might want to be a different race when it grows up?
At first, there was no launcher there was just the Minecraft.jar file which you could launch to start playing. That's what the parent page is doing; it's just having us download and run the game, no need for a launcher.
is there any hosting site that isn't? feels like a computing law at this point; if you build a hosting site, someone will try to use it for malicious purposes.
Lack of moderation combined with an offical-sounding domain name.
This would have to get the user to follow a link or call a phone number or something though. These are plausible. It's too bad the content-security-policy can't prevent following links.
Bluesky seems to use a lot of totally different domain names for each part of their infrastructure, maybe for this reason. e.g. this one is bsky.network
While they're nowhere close on volume, they're certainly beating microsoft in terms of the rate they're adding similar looking official URLs.
I think the linked blogpost is the first time I've seen that URL used anywhere user-facing. (other than the status page) bsky.<TLD> is already used for other user-facing URLs though.
I guess bsky.net and bluesky.net were taken. What’s weird is why ICANN allowed .network TLD at all when .net already existed, was shorter, and meant for that.
I mean, the way AT Proto is designed, moderation primarily happens on the app layer, not the protocol layer. So on an app like Bluesky, you can have a lot of moderation. But the protocol itself allows hosting arbitrary content in a distributed/decentralized way.
As long as content is authored by the administrator of the server, I don't see where there is a security issue.
It's like if you point to your own Apache server in your own domain where you host a scam page and say there's a security issue with Apache because you could do that.
Or are you saying that you can make this person's server serve third-party content?
Cobalt is also completely free, without ads or any other monetization besides donations, it's purely meant to help normal people download videos for normal people purposes. It's not like they're a for-profit data harvesting outfit complaining about getting abused by another for-profit data harvesting outfit.
You're just saying that Cobalt is small and non-profit so they must be good and YouTube and ByteDance are big and rich so they must be evil. But if you only look that what they are actually doing here, it's very similar: bypassing protections to use a service in a way that the service provider doesn't like.
...Because someone scraping from a Bytedance IP range is not necessarily Bytedance, just like requests from an AWS IP do not imply Amazon authored the spider
In isolation, a thief masquerading as a security system technician and an actual technician both do good work by checking on your home security. You can't meaningfully say one is better than the other, because even though one is secretly casing out your home so he can rob it later, in isolation they're doing the same thing.
Cobalt is bypassing protections to allow legitimate Youtube users to download single videos without causing harm and with no monetary incentives.
Bytedance is mass downloading thounsands of videos, all for monetary incentives while heavily breaking the TOS and potentially ignoring copyright laws.
Similar, but one is doing way more harm than the other.
> while heavily breaking the TOS and potentially ignoring copyright laws
Cobalt also breaks the TOS and ignores copyright laws, personally I don't think that matters but having a double standard when one company does it "It's ok when they do it" and when one you don't like does it you try to use copyright laws and TOS as a weapon just makes me think it really isn't about TOS or copyright is it.
Also just gives YouTube ammunition to impose stricter protection against smaller violators like cobalt, like self running yt-dlp
Then they either didn't set up CF correctly or they just use the mode in most headless browsers that bypasses default CF protection when CF is not in attack mode.
We are seeing justice from the many ways. There aren't many people who appreciate waiting on justice in crimes that are ruining a lot to steal a little.