Help Page for Switching to Local Accounts on Windows 11 Mysteriously Disappears and Then Reappears Days Later

[Peter_Brosdahl]

Some have already been tracking how Microsoft is seemingly moving towards online-only account logins and it was believed this latest event could be another move in that direction, after all, it was only a few weeks ago that it was discovered how one easy workaround for creating a local account on Windows 11 had been removed.

See full article...

 

[Zarathustra]

Same reason why the Facebook app periodically drops the "open links in external browser" option in the app, only to have it reappear a few revisions later (defaulting to off again, regardless what your previous setting was)

These companies are manipulative *******s trying to make it as inconvenient as possible to not give them access to all of your data so they can mismanage it, sell it, let it get stolen by hackers, and/or be abused by their own employees only use it for secret targeted ads, pinky promise for sure!

This is similar to how to how to clicking the x to close the window in the Windows 10 upgrade prompt resulted in "upgrading" to Windows 10 for many back when it first launched.

"Whoops did we do that? So sorry, pinky promise it will never happen again!" But it is all on purpose. Every manipulative little bullshit trick in the book to get them what they want, and ignore user consent.

It's a total "whoops wrong hole" rapist mentality, and it has to stop!

User consent should be absolute, and underline absolutely everything we do on every single platform. This needs to be written into law, and not in a "slap the trillion dollar corporation on the wrists" way. Make the minimum financial penalty the actual revenue seen from the practice, and multiply x10 for damages. Then require the company report the both the manager giving the direction to take these steps AND the employees who executed it, so they can be charged with a crime and sent to federal - pound me in the *** - prison.

This is what we need.

REAL accountability for lack of consent in tech. Both financial for the organization and criminal for the individual.

I say we require a fiduciary responsibility by the tech firms towards their users. One where they must always act in their users best interest, and only their users best interest. Profits must be secondary.

Nothing less than this will ever be acceptable.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The day I can no longer use Windows without creating an online account will be the last day I use Windows. Heck, even as it is, I haven't booted into windows in months. I only use it for games, and I haven't had time for games lately.

 

[Denpepe]

User consent should be absolute, and underline absolutely everything we do on every single platform. This needs to be written into law, and not in a "slap the trillion dollar corporation on the wrists" way. Make the minimum financial penalty the actual revenue seen from the practice, and multiply x10 for damages. Then require the company report the both the manager giving the direction to take these steps AND the employees who executed it, so they can be charged with a crime and sent to federal - pound me in the *** - prison.

This is what we need.

REAL accountability for lack of consent in tech. Both financial for the organization and criminal for the individual.

Not saying you are wrong, but we may end up with a 500$ or 1000$ copy of windows that takes a week to install and requires a lawyer to assist you to understand all the BS technicalities you have ot wade trough, and most of the people installing it might not give a **** and accept everything anyways.

And then you have to go trough all the same stuff again for every piece of software you install on your machine or every website you visit? I'm already anoyed enough by all the cookie consent I have to give all the time, I don't need more.

 

[MadMummy76]

Not saying you are wrong, but we may end up with a 500$ or 1000$ copy of windows that takes a week to install and requires a lawyer to assist you to understand all the BS technicalities you have ot wade trough, and most of the people installing it might not give a **** and accept everything anyways.

And then you have to go trough all the same stuff again for every piece of software you install on your machine or every website you visit? I'm already anoyed enough by all the cookie consent I have to give all the time, I don't need more.

That's the gaslighting the companies would use. Nobody wants to individually opt in to copy every single file during installation, that's a strawman.

Opt in was the normal up to Windows 7, instead of jumping through hoops to opt out if you even can opt out. Yet Windows 7 didn't cost $1000.

 

[Denpepe]

Opt in was the normal up to Windows 7, instead of jumping through hoops to opt out if you even can opt out. Yet Windows 7 didn't cost $1000.

back then you had to buy windows or pirate it, now they basically give it away and make money trough your data, (and they make way more money trough that data then they ever made by selling windows keys) if they can't do that they will want/have to make that money through sales or investors will be unhappy,

The industry has become way more data driven then sales driven then it used to be, probably not going to last but for now we are kind of stuck with it as sad and annoying as that may be.

 

[MadMummy76]

back then you had to buy windows or pirate it, now they basically give it away and make money trough your data, (and they make way more money trough that data then they ever made by selling windows keys) if they can't do that they will want/have to make that money through sales or investors will be unhappy,

The industry has become way more data driven then sales driven then it used to be, probably not going to last but for now we are kind of stuck with it as sad and annoying as that may be.

Companies tend to forget that they need to satisfy the customer before their investors. If the customers go away the investors will be equally unhappy. And the reluctance to upgrade to win 11 despite of it being "free" is clear indication of their clientele evaporating.

Just because they want my data doesn't mean they have a right to my data. I fear I'm giving them more data than I'm comfortable with even on W10. I'm sorry but I'd rather pay for an OS than to allow them full access to my desktop.

 

[Zarathustra]

(and they make way more money trough that data then they ever made by selling windows keys)

I've always been kind of curious what the monetary value of my data is on a monthly basis.

My assumption is that it is a rather tiny amount on an individual basis, but that it ads up in aggregate volume over lots of users.

Maybe only like $1-$2 or something like that, but I honestly have no actual idea at all.

I'd imagine the value of my data is lower than most, as I block most ads, and when I run into an ad, I do my best to not notice the brand or product it is for by spacing out a little on purpose. If I do come across an ad and I am unable to ignore it to the point where I don't know what it is for, I usually just boycott whomever is advertising to me.

I will not be sold to.

If I want something, I will come to you. No exceptions. If you try to reach out to me, all this does is guarantee you will never make a sale to me.

Absolutely nothing will make me dig in my heels faster than perceiving that someone is trying to "influence" my decision-making. I become almost hellbent on sabotaging their efforts when that happens. It becomes my goal to make my data of absolute zero value to them out of spite for their audacity to think it is OK to collect my data.

If I ever met face to face with one of these data brokers there would at the very least be a verbal altercation. I can't guarantee it wouldn't escalate. I consider them enemies of the people. Every last one of them in the chain of collecting, selling and analyzing personal data, from the executives and managers calling the shots all the way down to the worker bees that enable them.

I have no problem paying for content. I use Patreon liberally for the sites I frequent the most. But I have a really freaking huge problem with those who try to spy on me by burying bullshit deep in their EULA's (or by just doing it even more on the sly) and I feel nearly any means is justified in defending myself against this scum.

I wish there were a better way to pay for content though. With the way our times work by linking to articles, more often than not, I will read just one article a site has to offer, but then maybe not visit that site again for months or even years, if ever. Patreon works for sites I visit regularly, but I would obviously not sign up for a subscription to get beyond a paywall for something like that where I only occasionally visit, as it would be a complete waste of my money. The subscription model just doesn't work for most content in this age. The era of the newspaper is dead.

I vaguely remember in the late 90's there was talk about some sort of e-wallet system (a novel idea at the time, as e-wallets had not yet taken off) which you could load up with a small amount of money, and then participating sites could deduct a small amount of money (pennies, I think it was, but I'd even be OK with dimes if that is more reflective of the actual cost.) per unique link visit. I forget who it was that proposed this, but from memory it was someone who was a known name in the tech industry at the time. It seemed like a better solution for our age. I really wish there were a universal system like this all sites participated in, instead of everyone trying to spy on me and present me with ads that interrupt, distract and ruin the online experience...

 

[Denpepe]

I'd imagine the value of my data is lower than most, as I block most ads, and when I run into an ad, I do my best to not notice the brand or product it is for by spacing out a little on purpose. If I do come across an ad and I am unable to ignore it to the point where I don't know what it is for, I usually just boycott whomever is advertising to me.

I think ads is just a part of the total data collexcxting business (maybe even a small one at that), but knowing what sites you visit, what hardware you use, how much time you spend on each program you use, what options you most frequently use, what navigation shortcuts etc..

I try and avoid as much ads as possible, I'm on none of the social media platforms, only a couple forums, but I'm by no means convinced that they don't know more about me then I would care for them do know.

The other day I had my internet/tv/phone provider (yes, we still have a landline) to try and get me a mobile sub, which I refused as I only spend like 15-20€ a year on my prepaid mobile, not goind to pay like 10-15€ a month.

I don't need the sub, and they don't need to know more of me then they already do.

 

[MadMummy76]

I've always been kind of curious what the monetary value of my data is on a monthly basis.

My assumption is that it is a rather tiny amount on an individual basis, but that it ads up in aggregate volume over lots of users.

Maybe only like $1-$2 or something like that, but I honestly have no actual idea at all.

You can't put a price on individual data points. By themselves they are worthless. But collated and cataloged usage data from millions of users with internet history or even media consumption history, that is worth a fortune, and it can be sold to multiple data brokers.

I usually just boycott whomever is advertising to me.

I will not be sold to.

The vast majority of the ads you see on the internet are not directly placed by the advertiser. They just buy 1.000.000 appearances or some number and the ad provider decides where those will appear and to whom. And since advertisement is driven by your data, if you try boycotting you are basically boycotting your own interests.

 

[Zarathustra]

I think ads is just a part of the total data collexcxting business (maybe even a small one at that), but knowing what sites you visit, what hardware you use, how much time you spend on each program you use, what options you most frequently use, what navigation shortcuts etc..

Well, I mean, there is front end vs back end right? The value of the data is both what it can be sold for to data brokers/aggregators, but also the increase in revenues from better more targeted ads.

You can't put a price on individual data points. By themselves they are worthless. But collated and cataloged usage data from millions of users with internet history or even media consumption history, that is worth a fortune, and it can be sold to multiple data brokers.

Absolutely. Not suggesting individual data points can be individually priced, but I'd be curious on average what my contribution to the revenues of an organization like Google or Facebook, or even a smaller website might be, if for no other reason than to figure out if my Patreon contributions are sufficient to offset the lost revenues from me using an ad blocker

The vast majority of the ads you see on the internet are not directly placed by the advertiser. They just buy 1.000.000 appearances or some number and the ad provider decides where those will appear and to whom.

My understanding is that there is actually a real-time "auction" between advertisers based on preset values of the type of users they want to reach and what their priority is every time you load a webpage. This is why despite our internet connections being orders of magnitude faster than they used to be, webpages are generally less responsive, as they do the whole ad auction algorithm before content is sent to the user.

And since advertisement is driven by your data, if you try boycotting you are basically boycotting your own interests.

I disagree with this. Just because an entity wants to drown out the competition and get their product in-front of me does not mean that they have my best interest at heart. They have their best interest at heart, which is selling me their product so they can get their money, regardless of whether or not the product is actually the best one for me.

They could be a ****ty company selling a ****ty product and trying to influence/deceive me by having a bigger ad budget with glitzier advertising, and when you fall for this influence game (which we all do subconsciously, as even just seeing a brand more often in advertising makes it a known entity to our brains and likely to make us more positively inclined towards it, whether or not it is any good) you are actually working to the detriment of your own interests.

Advertising is an industry where psychologists have been studying the best ways to manipulate, trick and fool the masses into parting with their hard earned cash even when it is against their own best interests. We are all better off the fewer ads we see, even when they are targeted. They are literally designed on purpose to manipulate and mess with your head as much as they possibly can to get you to act against your own best interests and just choose them.

There is literally nothing positive about ads, even when targeted. They are a drag on society that harm people and inevitably influence them into making less rational decisions, even when they know better. (None of us, no matter how hard we try are immune from the basic biases of our monkey brains that these marketing psychologists have learned to manipulate)

My own best interests are to be free of biased information, manipulation and lies and instead research my choices when (and only when) I am ready to make a purchase in an as objective manner as possible.

Thus my interests are to keep my mind as unbiased as possible as I approach purchasing decisions, and to harm anyone trying to actively sell me anything either with pushy sales staff, door to door tactics or advertising as much as I can in order to disincentivize them from trying to do so in the future.

The only businesses that are in my best interest to deal with are the ones who sit back, shut up, and let me come to them, and if I never do, then leave me the **** alone. I have literally never in my life benefited from learning about a product through an ad - even when that ad was targeted - and I likely never will.

If it were up to me any and all advertising would be illegal. All products would come in basic square brown packaging (that doesn't stand out on a shelf) with nothing but detailed specifications on them describing their objective attributes, which should be required to be backed by objective and unbiased tests reviewed by some form of agency put in charge of making sure the the claims are accurate (like FDA for drugs and medical products), before they can be placed on the market.

I would kill the practice of branding completely, in all ways except for basic recognition of a designer/manufacturer so you know what you are getting. No pictures, no cool graphics or jingles, no conjured up life styles, no fancy packaging, just objective performance criteria.

 

[David_Schroth]

I wish there were a better way to pay for content though.

Me too. It's not cheap to make and even more difficult to hit critical mass with it. We actually are making about as much with our direct placement ads right now as we are the ad network (hooray for revenue diversification), but it still doesn't cover costs. Direct placement ads are tough sells as everyone wants to pay influenzas that hype the brand to their followers instead of reviewers that provide an honest opinion (as, quite frankly, they've probably found they sell more kit that way).

My understanding is that there is actually a real-time "auction" between advertisers based on preset values of the type of users they want to reach and what their priority is every time you load a webpage. This is why despite our internet connections being orders of magnitude faster than they used to be, webpages are generally less responsive, as they do the whole ad auction algorithm before content is sent to the user.

The auction is absolutely correct. Bids are higher if you meet whatever personalization attributes the bidder is looking for and quite frankly, is a huge multiplier on earnings. Unpersonalized ads can easily be worth a tenth or less of a personalized one to the publisher.

However, it is incorrect to state that the auction will slow a page load. Yes, it runs in parallel to the page load, but creepy uncle google has metrics (Core Web Vitals) in place that basically force the site to load and be usable rather quickly - space will be reserved for the ads which will be ajax'ed in as the auction finishes. It does make a page a lot heavier though - tons more javascript and ajax action happening than there would be otherwise.

Here's how we are on the core web vitals for desktop - Basically 60% of our pages are fine, the other 40% have an LCP (largest contentful paint - basically biggest thing above the fold for a page - an image or title typically) in the 2.5-3s-ish range, usually due to some unoptimized image or a cache miss. Ads usually finish their initial load around the 5 second mark. I think the Core Web Vitals initiative (a bigger focus over the past 4-5 years for the Google) has made a significant improvement for most web denizen's average browsing habits. I'm guessing you haven't really had ads served to you since long before then...

 

[Zarathustra]

Me too. It's not cheap to make and even more difficult to hit critical mass with it. We actually are making about as much with our direct placement ads right now as we are the ad network (hooray for revenue diversification), but it still doesn't cover costs. Direct placement ads are tough sells as everyone wants to pay influenzas that hype the brand to their followers instead of reviewers that provide an honest opinion (as, quite frankly, they've probably found they sell more kit that way).


The auction is absolutely correct. Bids are higher if you meet whatever personalization attributes the bidder is looking for and quite frankly, is a huge multiplier on earnings. Unpersonalized ads can easily be worth a tenth or less of a personalized one to the publisher.

However, it is incorrect to state that the auction will slow a page load. Yes, it runs in parallel to the page load, but creepy uncle google has metrics (Core Web Vitals) in place that basically force the site to load and be usable rather quickly - space will be reserved for the ads which will be ajax'ed in as the auction finishes. It does make a page a lot heavier though - tons more javascript and ajax action happening than there would be otherwise.

Here's how we are on the core web vitals for desktop - Basically 60% of our pages are fine, the other 40% have an LCP (largest contentful paint - basically biggest thing above the fold for a page - an image or title typically) in the 2.5-3s-ish range, usually due to some unoptimized image or a cache miss. Ads usually finish their initial load around the 5 second mark. I think the Core Web Vitals initiative (a bigger focus over the past 4-5 years for the Google) has made a significant improvement for most web denizen's average browsing habits. I'm guessing you haven't really had ads served to you since long before then...

View attachment 3151

Thanks for the explanation.

Reading is great, but nothing beats first hand knowledge.

 

[MadMummy76]

I disagree with this. Just because an entity wants to drown out the competition and get their product in-front of me does not mean that they have my best interest at heart. They have their best interest at heart, which is selling me their product so they can get their money, regardless of whether or not the product is actually the best one for me.

I didn't mean interest as in what is best for you, but interests as in which types of products might interest you.

There were quite a few occasions where I only learned that a product or brand even existed through ads. If I'm aware of more products I'm better equipped to make the right decision for me. Doesn't mean I'll actually buy the brand advertised.

They could be a ****ty company selling a ****ty product and trying to influence/deceive me by having a bigger ad budget with glitzier advertising, and when you fall for this influence game (which we all do subconsciously, as even just seeing a brand more often in advertising makes it a known entity to our brains and likely to make us more positively inclined towards it, whether or not it is any good) you are actually working to the detriment of your own interests.

I always chose what to buy based on price and features. Brand only comes into play if all other things are equal.

Advertising is an industry where psychologists have been studying the best ways to manipulate, trick and fool the masses into parting with their hard earned cash even when it is against their own best interests. We are all better off the fewer ads we see, even when they are targeted. They are literally designed on purpose to manipulate and mess with your head as much as they possibly can to get you to act against your own best interests and just choose them.

Psychological manipulation might work on someone who is naive enough to buy the bullshit. "Just now" "just for you" "offer only valid for 5 minutes". These manipulation tactics are the worst and makes me more skeptical of anyone using them. What I hate most is when online shops show that there are x amount of people looking at the same product. That's pure manipulation based on fomo. I'd rather miss 10 "deals" than impulse buy some crap once. But just because someone is using these doesn't automatically mean their offer or product is bad. If I were to exclude them solely based on the aggressive ad campaign, I might be hurting myself.

There is literally nothing positive about ads, even when targeted. They are a drag on society that harm people and inevitably influence them into making less rational decisions, even when they know better. (None of us, no matter how hard we try are immune from the basic biases of our monkey brains that these marketing psychologists have learned to manipulate)

You seem to be overestimating the power of ads, they are just white noise to me unless I was already in the market for the thing being advertised, and even then it is only another option to compare to the rest I was already aware of, it won't sway me in of itself.

My own best interests are to be free of biased information, manipulation and lies and instead research my choices when (and only when) I am ready to make a purchase in an as objective manner as possible.

Everything is biased, even independent reviews carry with them the biases of the reviewer. You surely agree that you are more capable of making the best decision if you are aware of more options, right? And ads are just more options.

Thus my interests are to keep my mind as unbiased as possible as I approach purchasing decisions, and to harm anyone trying to actively sell me anything either with pushy sales staff, door to door tactics or advertising as much as I can in order to disincentivize them from trying to do so in the future.

I've learned to disassociate the marketing from the product, they are wholly unrelated in most cases, except for TV Shop type garbage and companies running ad reads through big influencers. Because it is clear that those spend 90% of their budget on ads, and as such even if the product is good, it will be overpriced due to the outrageous amount spent on ads. For example: raycon.

The only businesses that are in my best interest to deal with are the ones who sit back, shut up, and let me come to them, and if I never do, then leave me the **** alone. I have literally never in my life benefited from learning about a product through an ad - even when that ad was targeted - and I likely never will.

That would require you to be aware of all companies making products. I assume your brand awareness isn't granted to you by divine revelation

If it were up to me any and all advertising would be illegal. All products would come in basic square brown packaging (that doesn't stand out on a shelf) with nothing but detailed specifications on them describing their objective attributes, which should be required to be backed by objective and unbiased tests reviewed by some form of agency put in charge of making sure the the claims are accurate (like FDA for drugs and medical products), before they can be placed on the market.

High quality and visually appealing packaging goes a long way to raise customer satisfaction. But it is not something I'd ever base my purchase on, it is just an added bonus. And when buying online as I do 99% of the time I never even see the packaging until after the product is delivered, so it can't affect my decision making.

I would kill the practice of branding completely, in all ways except for basic recognition of a designer/manufacturer so you know what you are getting. No pictures, no cool graphics or jingles, no conjured up life styles, no fancy packaging, just objective performance criteria.

Design is kind of part of branding. If there are no product pictures that's an instant disqualification from me. Specs in of themselves don't tell the full picture, not even close. OK, maybe with the exception of internal PC components or products were form is completely irrelevant. But in many cases form infers function.