thank you, i was afraid i was having weird ideas on this one... seems i noticed it and understood it the way it was meant to be :)


if i want to stretch it to absurd level, it's like complaining that laws against murder are not taking in account the poor people who actually want to die or commit suicide... and so we shouldnt forbid killing spree any longer, in case some fed-up-with-life poor could could be glad to be caught in the middle.

Hopefully, i am not the kind of guy who would want to stretch the though-process to such absurd extent, so... i wont mention it :)

Would it be possible to also align it to the left, like the dropdown lists? It looks weird just floating out there by itself.

I think that's history of the Internet in a nutshell. Communities that formed in the pre-social media/social features days were much stronger and more real than the "we're all one happy facebook family" of today. They overcame technical issues and shortcomings due to genuine passion for shared interests or true comraderie. Nowadays everyone is "friends" because an algorythm suggested it and becoming "friends" is just a click an addition to a meaningless list, all of that really in the interest of some corporation, not the "community".

I do not use Galaxy and had no idea that those settings are, or might be, required for features and as Breja said "[...] You can make public what once was private, but you can't effectively make provate what was already released to the public. It's about as simple and obvious as things get."

i smile a bit because there is a whole scene in a game i finished playing recently (the cat lady) about the whole "absurdity"/oddity of social networks, with one very sceptical character that cant understand the (lack of) logic in it (felt related, to the character, frankly.. i started internet in 95, with irc and old forum boards... and yes, communities were tighter, and people i met there in fact grew into real friends irl)

and yes, even if it is completely possible to grow a friendship online (i would never deny it, from my ow experience), i can also claim that someone having 274 FB friends (or 274 gog friends) is not having "friends" in the normal meaning of the word, and they would barely get to REALLY know, share and spend time with more than 10% of that...

I repeat my post from gamingonlinux

Finally!

Sometimes I want to make some gift, but I don't know if the person I want to give the game already have it...
Sometimes I am just curious and I want to know which games have this user..
Sometimes I want to know how many users have this or that game..

With public profiles, a clone of Steamspy is possible.

And I always want to show the world the games I really own...

You really own a game when that game is DRMFREE...

Love You, GOG! Keep growing!

It's obviously a loss for someone who, let's say, only learned a year later thatn he could use social features.

Not to mention you seem to be under the assumption that during the period in which the settings are set to public, the user's data will be recorded somewhere else by someone else who's going to maliciously use that number of hours you spent playing The Witcher to blackmail you.

I think I'm beyond the mentality of shouting "dense" at others on online forums, but let me emphasize that I, too, have already mentioned several times that I understand perfectly the nature of the issue people have with this. What I don't understand is the scale.

I'm really curious how many of the complainers use Facebook, Windows 10 or Google Chrome. If they do use any of these and yet complain about the title of the last game you played via Galaxy being displayed to other GOG users (which you can freely change if it bothers you), then I can't help but laugh.

Me either so I don't know either, I just know how I would define personal data or information. I do have to believe GOG isn't stupid though and has already been advised of the law by their lawyers. It's possible they may change things yet again once it actually goes into effect.

I've already said they should if they have too, even if they limit those changes to users based in the EU.

Nope, nope, nope.
I'm very glad that gives me the license to continue complaining about the way gog isn't following (what will very soon be) the law here. :)

Well the feature hasn't been added yet so they kind of are getting your feedback first? They can still make changes up until the feature is rolled out.

Typically those who take issue with it will speak up about before those who don't and forum users represent a small portion of the entire community. Not saying GOG shouldn't take that feedback but you also have to keep that in mind as well.

well, take it as a testimony from someone who had been doxxed and harassed online and irl from an online source, and in a "pre-socialnetworking" era on top of that, and i can assure you that it can just take very geuine little things to start working on profiling someone online for malevolent intents...

so what you see as disproportioned scale of reactions, here i see some well deserved and insightful cautiousness instead

Also:

Lack of Win 10 here ? Check
Lack of FB account ? Check
Lack of Chrome browser ? Check
do you then grant me the right to keep speaking, or... ?

(and even yet, for win 10, it is still technically possible to circumvene its telemetry and such, though one has to be ready to go to some rather techsavy length for it...)

As BKGaming said, I really don't think GOG is stupid not to know what they're legally allowed to do.

No licenses are required to complain, but it certainly adds some authenticity to your position and that's already something.

That's why I don't think we'll find a more reasonable solution than a pop-up window at first login that forces the user to choose their privacy settings - and they can be private until that first login happens.

Thanks. Gives me some hope for this forum. :)
No it doesn't but one can't claim GOG wasn't upfront with them about how they view public profiles and how they use certain data here. I've already said GOG should comply with EU law (especially GDPR) if that requires making changes, even going as far as using geolocation data to be in compliance.

well, as i said earlier, i was in favor of a popup window to warn and switch some of the privacy settings... when they are a required part of some features/services.

oh and... to give people choice, rather than deciding for them what is good or what they want... when on earth "having choice" stopped being a decent solution or attitude and slided into the realm of bad unwanted possiblities ?
hey according to one of your earlier post, GOG wouldnt even have to comply with any law, as long as they put things in their TOS...
if people agree to the TOS, they forfeit their right to fall within the scope of any law outside of GOG, right ? :)

also, GDPR is coming 5 years too late if you ask me... and as long as many online service will be granted/left the right to shield themselves behind some "only justice court of our own favorable country is competent to settle up disputes with customers from any foreign countries we however have some local HQ in, anyway"... you can put all the GDPR you want, it wont apply

now, for GOG, recently having switched its HQ to poland (with some "loss" in game licensing and publoishers contacts, as we saw), within EU... i still think they can cleverly word their TOS to legally circumvene the GDPR anyway, so...
GDPR is just a reassuring scarecrow meant to calm down most of the worried folks, but it is less efficient than an actual scarecrow at the task.