this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2026
576 points (97.7% liked)

Technology

88098 readers
3571 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Meh, it's Google. They suck and can afford it.

[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

sure, I agree with that.

doesn't change the fact that the credit card and ad service was used as intended

If I stab myself with a knife, I don't blame the knife manifacturer about how shit they are because I stabbed myself by user error

It's just a really shitty situation overall

[–] SirLeToet@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

I need to confirm my online purchases through my banking app. But I willingly dont connect my banking details anywhere.

I find it weird that payment details can be stored for one-click purchases later on. It is just so highly and easily abused.

We dont accept this kind of payment behavior at a store for obvious reasons, but online it is considered normal? I guess it maximises profits, which are important.

And when these carefully designed systems for low barrier purchases are abused by a child, all responsibility goes to the parent?

Wild how normalised this behavior is.

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Didn't really need this analogy, as it's not as clear in this case, more like a child was able to start a run of papers on their own and cost the printer $100k running the printers for 15 minutes.

Should they have been in the printers with access to the buttons? No

But again it's Google

[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 day ago

Should they have been in the printers with access to the buttons? No

agreed, the kid absolutely should not have had access to it. And Google explicitly forbids it. But the dad put the kid in front of it anyway and said "you can use it, but only up to 20 bucks" and walked away