Now that this feature of vital importance has been implemented, can we hope to see the option to set the non-Galaxy installers as default? You know, the one that was promised six months ago?

Won't ask about fixing the numerous forum bugs GOG introduced in that past 8-10 months; don't want to be greedy.



Their sense of prioritising is what's wrong with this.

On that I agree though from what I've been told (as far as friend suggestions and all that) it was mostly the work of the Galaxy team, not the web developers. Integrating Facebook login should be rather quick and easy because you are basically implementing a facebook API that is already written.

But yea other stuff should have taken a higher priority I agree. My comment was in-regards to this Cambridge scandal and how that should not keep it from GOG.

Good thing that I have facebook and twitter blacklisted in uBlock Origin.

Granted I haven't read much about the controversy but I always find privacy worries on sites like Facebook with a bit of a chuckle. The whole point of the site is sharing your info, and you only share what you want. Also obviously the business model of the site relies on your data being given over. That's what all that "I agree" stuff means kids!

Not saying you shouldn't have a Facebook, my wife loves that site, but she also knows what it is.

The change also locked me out for a full day unless I wanted to give Google more data points via the demanded CAPTCHA.

Getting tired of all the "social" data-mining integration. I'm being literally locked out of my game library unless I accept being habitually data-mined by third parties running scripts on GOG's site. The Google's CAPTCHA requirement on login in particular seems extremely insistent. In last three weeks or so I was locked out through it almost every other day (I kept checking with such unusual for me frequency because of the KC:D patches). It appears, keeps me out for a day, then disappears for absolutely no valid reason I can figure out. I'm using the same account, computer, browser, and IP.

You'd think the whole recent concrete proof of how such overbearing data-mining practices can undermine democracy itself would make somebody go, "hey, now wait a minute."

Or at least GOG would consider the privacy of their customers base something more than just another way to monetize their operations.

That is blatantly and provably false: https://gizmodo.com/how-facebook-figures-out-everyone-youve-ever-met-1819822691

Not only that, I'm pretty sure neither you nor your wife are actually fully cognizant of the extent of Facebook's data acquisition. Your using their site is not the only input method - they also have access to your purchase history via third-party credit card information, any governmental "open records", and may or may not be able to tap into actually restricted government databases (the extent of overlap between Facebook and TLAs is something I do not expect to be raised during the incoming Congressional deposition of Zuckeberg).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/08/19/98-personal-data-points-that-facebook-uses-to-target-ads-to-you/

https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/23/facebook-confirm-io/

The whole uproar about CA and Facebook is not so much about the fact that they gather and disseminate private information, but the realization of just how dangerous such practices can be to democratic systems.

Something that has been getting me labeled as "paranoid conspiracy theory tin-foil hatter" since I started discussing such topics in early 2000s.

The sad part of the situation is that most likely the general apathy due to lack of understanding of the subject will lead to pretty much nothing (at least in the US) changing, just like it happened with Snowden's revelations of mass unconstitutional government surveillance of US population (also something that was laughed out using the usual epithets since techies started pointing out the practice a decade or so before Snowden).

For crying out loud, socials are already mined in the US by insurance companies, among others (and for a while, too: https://www.cnbc.com/2014/04/16/data-mining-is-now-used-to-set-insurance-rates-critics-cry-fowl.html). Do we really need to wait until companies "individualize" prices of products based on compiled user profiles (much less end up with a sociopathic cleptomaniac as a president) before the society as a whole realizes that technological capacity for certain things does not make them beneficial in the long run?

The power of mass population surveillance, whether government-controlled or, even worse, concentrated in hands of profit-oriented megacorps, is one of such things.

It was an amazing technical achievement when Obama did it. Only now that someone the Washington Post hates is in office are these tactics seen as horrible and nefarious. I say this as a liberal, by the way. I just hate media hypocrisy, which means I hate pretty much all news media.

The rest of what you wrote... I'm not gonna say tin-foil hat, no. I think there are real concerns there about societal changes that will result. However my point was more that my wife is fine with it and doesn't care. I think that goes for the vast majority of other millennials as well, and probably quite a few older folks. It's kind of like how I heard about all of London being under a video camera lens and thought that was some scary Orwellian stuff but Londonites don't seem to give a crap.