I disagree with the words you've chosen, but I think others are missing the sentiment. Most of us understand there is a level of politics involved in making free software. The problem many software communities are facing is unnecessary purity tests. The mission of the GNOME desktop environment does not include protesting U.S. I.C.E. enforcement.
Is the identity of those who make donations protected in any way? Could a company seek legal damages against all or some crowdfunders for what they might deem as libel (regardless of merit)? I doubt people who donate $1 here or $2 there have the capability of warding off a lawsuit.
The social contract was to show ads. Gathering people's data even on websites they don't even own was not the social contract. Google broke the contract and to suggest otherwise is gaslightling. Google can either start blindly showing context-relevant ads with no tracking or they can eat the loss from those willing to use free services.
Oh great, now I can exchange QR codes to connect with my frie...oops! Actually I can't because my server's admin got called a "poopyhead" so decided to defederate and isolate all the users. I wonder why people still use Twitter/X...
John Scalzi is a one (or three) hit wonder. The first three books of the "Old Man's War" series are the only books of his worth reading. Don't waste your time with Zoe's War, there isn't anything of substance in that book. The following books in the series just seem like Scalzi trying to milk the success of Old Man's War. There isn't anything new or interesting.
> That's my major problem with it; it locks you out of messing with your own machine data, which you can see being instantly abused by third parties to prevent modifications.
It locks everybody, including the owner, out of any data it doesn't own. That's the point. If you can pull it out, so can anybody else, and you've just made a small hard drive. Could it be used by vendors for DRM-like things? Sure. That's on the vendor, though, and not the technology itself.
> One which you, as the owner, don't have the keys to.
One which nobody, not even the owner, can extract keys from. I don't understand why people don't like the fact that they can't pull keys out of the TPM. If you, the owner, can pull them so can anybody else. I know TPMs aren't invulnerable but you have to admit they significantly raise the bar of compromise.
> You could make cryptographic protocol where all chats have an extra user in them whose key is unable to be decrypted or revealed unless there is a warrant provided.
If you're not doing anything that affects national security they won't bother burning that capability on you. They save action only for those they can take action against in a clandestine way (so the fact they can crack Tor is not on public record), or against someone so dangerous they need to act quickly for national security reasons (and a government acting quickly with overwhelming force is hard to keep secret).
You're being dishonest by implying that discussion of technology is inherently not inclusive and that an effort needs to be made to be inclusive by allowing people who feel oppressed (whether they are or are not) to play in the "oppression olympics" by creating tangential opinionated discussions regarding policy or ethical guidelines that have nothing to do with the technology or the problem the technology is trying to solve.
Technology is inherently apolitical and inclusive. Anyone who claims otherwise is just trying to stir up useless internet flame wars. If you want to uselessly rant about politics on the internet you can go to Reddit.
It's not backwards. The prosecution makes a claim and supports it with evidence. The defense makes the claim that the prosecution's evidence is fake, thus the defense needs to substantiate that claim. That's been true even before deepfakes were a thing.
> ...it was extremely disconcerting to see PHONE NUMBERS spread throughout the log messages. It doesn't take much imagination to see how you can build a network of who you are talking to (etc.) from this log information.
The intent of Signal is to provide confidentiality of message content, not any sort of anonymity. This covers like 90+% of user's threat models and it's focusing on one problem makes it very effective at solving that problem. If one also needs anonymity then communication should happen over something like Tor or I2P.
https://beginners.re/