But that’s not who is being targeted with the changes Backblaze has made. By silently excluding sync folders, they’re casting a wide net and hoping it will catch those who use workarounds. It might, but in the process it reveals their comfort with deceptive business practices and harms users of the backup service who are not using workarounds.
Are they boosting their AI business in anticipation of breaking encryption and then training their models on everyone’s data? That’s what I would assume of a company I no longer trust.
so it seems like they should just “limit” the storage to a reasonable number of TB that is more than most desktops/laptops, and less than NASes with hundreds of TB.
You just failed to read the article part the first ten words.
However, roughly six months ago, Backblaze enacted a silent change that made its backup app stop uploading local data synced to “OneDrive, Google Drive, Dropbox, Box, iDrive, and others.”
And I recall Backblaze stating that those users are a minority and aren’t a big concern. I used to do that, but when I attempted to restore 7TB and it took well over a month to restore what I needed, I switched to other solutions.
Yeah, screw those people. I can’t think of a single other reason a profit driven company would cut corners while storage prices rise due to AI companies.
That’s not surprising with all of the data hoarders abusing the unlimited backups to store hundreds of terabytes.
How is that abuse? “Unlimited” is a pretty audacious plan to offer. Maybe Backblaze shouldn’t offer something impossible.
The software only allows local drives to be backed up, but some people use workarounds to make it backup a large NAS or server.
But that’s not who is being targeted with the changes Backblaze has made. By silently excluding sync folders, they’re casting a wide net and hoping it will catch those who use workarounds. It might, but in the process it reveals their comfort with deceptive business practices and harms users of the backup service who are not using workarounds.
Are they boosting their AI business in anticipation of breaking encryption and then training their models on everyone’s data? That’s what I would assume of a company I no longer trust.
so it seems like they should just “limit” the storage to a reasonable number of TB that is more than most desktops/laptops, and less than NASes with hundreds of TB.
Headlines are clickbait. Literally the first line in the article. What more can they do than send an email?
The title is accurate.
You just failed to read the article part the first ten words.
And I recall Backblaze stating that those users are a minority and aren’t a big concern. I used to do that, but when I attempted to restore 7TB and it took well over a month to restore what I needed, I switched to other solutions.
If you can’t afford to offer unlimited backups, maybe put a limit?
Yeah, screw those people. I can’t think of a single other reason a profit driven company would cut corners while storage prices rise due to AI companies.
Hard to say thats it if just having 2TB uploaded is enough to be considered in the top.
Especially if they’ve already started ignoring other cloud files in people’s backups
Yeah, a few hundred outliers can really ruin it. People: have some self awareness and don’t be a douchebag.
You’re talking to the crowd where if it can be done, it should be done, and bragged about. Sadly.