I've tested this many times and never saw it happen.
dev_null
joined 8 months ago
Can you share this well documented documents?
By paying people $20 / month in exchange for installing a VPN that will snoop on your data so they can market research their competitors.
It is unacceptable, but it wasn't in secret from the users. They agreed to get paid in exchange for the usage data of competitor apps.
So it's a completely different situation to any "secretly spying" claim. The users had to go out of their way to get it setup.
And they are right. This company is full of shit. Show me any proof the tech from the deleted advert actually existed.
Catch Me If You Can. All that airline shenanigans could not happen post 9/11.
Good thing the plot is set in 1969 then.
They did.
- Android 10 Quince Tart
- Android 11 Red Velvet Cake
- Android 12 Snow Cone
But yeah, the codenames are almost never mentioned.
If it existed, yes. They probably didn't realize before making this failed "pitch", which is why they never developed this.
So the scammy company listed some known names for their fake tech ad, knowing they are full of shit and they don't have any partners in this, then deleted the ad when called out. Meanwhile it never existed because they were probably hoping to get someone's money to develop it. Except everyone knew this is massively stupid so they didn't.
Do we have any info about this being used by any app, or any details about the tech at all? We have an archived version of a deleted ad from a suspicious company. Do we know it even exists and wasn't a prospective ad to judge interest that went nowhere?
I want to see what contract they signed before he payed for their surgery.
Guilty until proven innocent, eh?
Most of them were gonna get the surgery done anyway, he just made it happen faster
Well, that's good isn't it?
In exchange for being on video.
I didn't watch the video, but skimmed through it now. In the wide shot it shows around 200 people. Meaning 800 people got it without having to appear on video. It's likely they just got the money and a question if they want to appear on a video. 20% said yes, 80% said no, still got the money. What's wrong with that? Looks completely voluntary.
If Jimmy was in it for good, he wouldn’t exploit the people he’s helping.
In that video, it doesn't look to me like he did. Clearly people got the money no strings attached, and an option to appear in a video in they want to, which most of them didn't take.
He makes more money off each video than he spent.
Which gets spent on the next stunt. If not for the 1000 blind people video, he would have no money for the 100 free houses video, without which he would have no money for the 100 wells in Africa video, ad infinitum. If you say what he does cannot be packaged into profitable media, then that's fine, but that means it can't be done at all. Filming people getting helped is how more people get helped next time. As long as it's voluntary for the people getting help, as it seems to be, I don't see anything wrong with it.
I agree with many of his criticisms, but to me he seems far from actual problems with this world caused by politicians and corporations. A YouTuber making a show of helping people seems like the last thing wrong with this world today. And people wouldn't need the help if we solved the actual issues.
Yeah, a marketing agency selling snake oil to people that actually think they can do it is not expensive. Of course they never actually built the tech.