>No amount of beating low level employees will change whether they can accept pdf sent by email or not.

I disagree. I'm sorry Karen here needs to bear the brunt, but if this kept up, at some point Karen's boss will take notice, And then it moves up the chain to someone who can affect that policy.

Companies purposefully set us up to communicate bottom-up, so we can either play the game or break the law.

>People who are responsible for overreaching unreasonable security rules ... are basically us

No, it'd be a policy maker or CEO who thinks we're in the 90's and that secure email documentation isn't a thing. "We" could suggest so many ways to handle it that would save costs while being more secure. We're not much higher on the totem pole than Karen.

Yet suddenly, we get these incidents and our bosses are suddenly rushing to IT to find a solution. As if 6 months of deliberation wasn't enough.

I'm not convinced it's 90% smaller.

>Whether the feature is beneficial overall is a different story.

It's the entore story in my eyes. Hell paved with good intentions (and I don't even think Google's intentions are good).

>People aren't going to be willing to stay on the phone for hours at a time.

"Okay, come back to me in a few hours and we'll continue"

Remember, these are already people who took the time to respond. They are invested.

yes. Hence, "this isn't about keeping people safe".

The most effective means of hacking is social engineering. You can't solve that with any number of "security measures". If you require all the DNA sources in the world, a scammer will still charm a target into opening it up for them.

>There is immense pressure to stop online scams which are draining old people of their life savings.

From who? I'd rather have this done by a regulated service like a bank than a private corporation with a perverse incentive. Frauds and scams are already illegal.

That't the similar narrative to "think of the children". They want to act as this middleman and secure their place, all while having unfettered access to people's data.

I've read his responses here and in other topics over 2025. He still seems to maintain that politics is something to avoid, regardless of quality. Not explicitly, but the way he talks about it gives that impression.

Having a tepidness when it comes to the dozens of slop articles on some trivial Ai blogs contradicts this mission to encourage curiosity and encourage a quality discussion. It feels outright contradictory and feeds into this sentiment that "anything tech is fine, nothing political is". Having flaggers do the work and promoting it as "community vote" is a convinent smokescreen, even though we all know flagging is based on a super minority of the community.

I know it feels knee-jerk, but I had this sentiment for a few years now as AI rose, and it of course hit a fever pitch in 2025. I think seeing a Tesla earnings call flagged because it wasn't stellar earnings really made me go from quiet apathy to being more vocal on the phenomenon. The actions (which I disagree on) simply do not match the words behind it (which I overall agree with).