206
Doesn’t help that they immediately updated their user agreement to avoid responsibility. Nothing says give our product a chance like that.
Honestly, even with really shitty notoreity and legal troubles, stock prices don't reach pennies without gross mismanagement of shares and offers.
Or have they just been unprofitable every quarter for years?
I don't trust them or anyone else with my data, let alone my DNA
Well someone's not getting reborn 200M years from now in Cenozoic Park.
Dun dun! Dun duuun! Dun-da daaa da-dun dun daaaah! flails silly human arms RAAAH!!!
"They do move in herds!"
That's why I prefer to let mosquitos bite me.
Mr. DNA‽ Where did you come from‽
load more comments
(16 replies)
Refreshing to have some sort of consequences for being negligent with people's data
Too bad the consequences are not prison.
Hear hear
No, they’ve been heading south for years. I would have loved for it to be a drop in response to the data breach, but this was just a company that was run incompetently.
Which data were they negligent with? I thought it was breaches on other sites that gave reused passwords.
Credential stuffing is a well understood part of the threat landscape that 23 and me negligently failed to account for, allowing hackers to access 7 million people's info after hacking only 14 thousand users.
load more comments
(5 replies)
There are still all kinds of things a company can do to mitigate at least some of this. New browser, new location, forced two-factor auth, etc.
load more comments
(1 replies)
For your entertainment:
If only they allowed more decimal points they could have been at 0.69420 !
Forward this to Elon Musk and he will make a buyout offer at that price.
Nah, he would puff himself up online and say he will buy it for $20 a share and then try and back out.
He would by at $69 just for the lols
Get ready for that data to be sold.
That's pretty much been their business model from day 1. If they didn't plan to sell it, there was no reason for them to keep it.
Yeah it was always going to come down to this. You can't make a lot of money on a business model that involves a selling something only once per customer. Eventually they were going to have to either charge money for data storage or sell what they had.
There was no "eventually". The whole point of their business was to sell it. They've been selling it since day one.
Exactly why I never even considered dealing with those DNA companies. They're a privacy nightmare.
You can reset your password a whole lot easier than resetting your DNA.
Isn't it already?
Fuck this company.
"Oh no, the consequences of my own actions!" - The CEO, probably
You think their self awareness is higher than I do
no
It was always a scam. Glad they are dying.
It will be interesting to see what the company that buys all their data will do with it.
Sell it to insurance companies for even more profit!
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024
206 points (96.8% liked)
News
37227 readers
617 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS