A lot of back and forth here re DDG: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31490515
The unfortunate but practical truth is that the combination of people who care about privacy AND are invested in technology is relatively small.
For a given individual who fits these above categories, getting heated over privacy companies being imperfect is, imo, not beneficial. It's understandable to feel "betrayed" but there are more practical ways to defend your privacy, and that bottom line is what deserves the focus.
Great example of well-intentioned technology oversight liable to go awry:
But it does look like it's receiving a) attention and b) debate, which is the expected and healthy process for bills of this nature.
There are two sides to remote work, and anecdotally I've seen deviations to either one. Nonetheless, interesting article https://www.essence.com/news/money-career/employees-say-remote-work-improved-mental-health/
This sort of outcome is unfortunate but predictable ---any tech organization has administrative decisions to make, and while there are better and worse ways to handle such situations, and we can critique those approaches, criticizing the outcome itself is questionable, in that the choice is intended to prioritize the organization's own interests.
This is where self-ownership technologies become more relevant.
https://tinfoilmylife.com/articles/protect-yourself-better-when-using-social-networks protecting your privacy on social media.
Open Source Social Network. Focused on technology, networking, linux, privacy and security, but open to anyone. Civil discourse, polite and open. Managed by the noc.org team.