Skip to content

Firefox is fine. The people running it are not

Technology
206 106 54
  • Hastags killed

    Technology technology
    6
    1
    16 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    34 Aufrufe
    klu9@lemmy.caK
    £ says: "The fuck they are, mate!"
  • Russia frees REvil hackers after sentencing

    Technology technology
    4
    1
    37 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    23 Aufrufe
    S
    What makes even more sense is that they now might be secretly forced to hack for the government in exchange for bread and water and staying out of prison.
  • 559 Stimmen
    99 Beiträge
    334 Aufrufe
    N
    In this year of 2025? No. But it still is basically setting oneself for failure from the perspective of Graphene, IMO. Like, the strongest protection in the world (assuming Graphene even is, which is quite a tall order statement) is useless if it only works on the mornings of a Tuesday that falls in a prime number day that has a blue moon and where there are no ATP tennis matches going on. Everyone else is, like, living in the real world, and the uniqueness of your scenario is going to go down the drain once your users get presented with a $5 wrench, or even cheaper: a waterboard. Because cops, let alone ICE, are not going to stop to ask you if they can make you more comfortable with your privacy being violated.
  • 1k Stimmen
    78 Beiträge
    275 Aufrufe
    K
    I just hear that they move to LibreOffice but not to Linux, ateast not right now.
  • France considers requiring Musk’s X to verify users’ age

    Technology technology
    20
    1
    142 Stimmen
    20 Beiträge
    80 Aufrufe
    C
    TBH, age verification services exist. If it becomes law, integrating them shouldn't be more difficult than integrating a OIDC login. So everyone should be able to do it. Depending on these services, you might not even need to give a name, or, because they are separate entities, don't give your name to the platform using them. Other parts of regulation are more difficult. Like these "upload filters" that need to figure out if something shared via a service is violating any copyright before it is made available.
  • 146 Stimmen
    37 Beiträge
    26 Aufrufe
    D
    Self hosted Sunshine and Moonlight is the way to go.
  • 462 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    309 Aufrufe
    L
    Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.
  • 278 Stimmen
    100 Beiträge
    290 Aufrufe
    F
    It's not just skills, it's also capital investment.