![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/u9kB0kgEaN.png)
The old ‘let perfection be the enemy of good’ argument…
Surely this is a step in the right direction?
The old ‘let perfection be the enemy of good’ argument…
Surely this is a step in the right direction?
Do we all need a competitor to Alphabet/Google? I’d say yes, I don’t think Alphabet is behaving fairly.
Santander and Caixa are perfect examples of how to terribly handle fraudulent payment disputes. I worked in the industry is it’s kinda well known they don’t even follow scheme (Visa/MC) requirements and when you ask them to escalate to scheme they gaslight you.
Knowing this is the hoops you have to jump through in .es means it makes sense they don’t have a robust anti-fraud process outside of .es.
That’s how I play the game, you get on first name basis with people too that way…
Lawnmaster L10
Agreed, but specifically an aftermarket electric seat bidet to save in a load of plumbing.
I asked them to check it(the privacy URL) and validate it wasn’t user error and they accused me of “wasting their time”…
No need to apologize, I’m just trying to get clarity if I’m right to call them out or not…
I have one option at 30 euros (this) and another at 60 euros (movistar).
There are others but they have a terrible reputation.
Given that the privacy policy is linked from the contract, can I assume that they will just say “you need to refer to the URL in the contract” and as that URL is non-existent I’m basically not able to protect my rights or does it work the other way?
In the privacy policy it states “We may share information with our business partners to offer you certain products, services or promotions”, it doesn’t explicitly state who they are…
Google ran a huge push to get these into schools too… There was a LOT of pressure on Schools to adopt from various partners (or at least that happened in the UK)…
Google is aware of the Microsoft gains from getting people used to their products at a young age…