Skip to content

Signal – an ethical replacement for WhatsApp

Technology
163 109 0
  • Iran asks its people to delete WhatsApp

    Technology technology
    25
    1
    225 Stimmen
    25 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    baduhai@sopuli.xyzB
    Communicate securely with WhatsApp? That's an oxymoron.
  • Microsoft Tests Removing Its Name From Bing Search Box

    Technology technology
    11
    1
    54 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    alphapuggle@programming.devA
    Worse. Office.com now takes me to m365.cloud.microsoft which as of today now takes me to a fucking Copilot chat window. Ofc no way to disable it because gee why would anyone want to do that?
  • 57 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    avidamoeba@lemmy.caA
    [image: c1b6d049-afed-4094-a09b-5af6746c814f.gif]
  • uBlockOrigin is porting uBOL to iOS and macOS

    Technology technology
    30
    324 Stimmen
    30 Beiträge
    15 Aufrufe
    C
    Will never happen unfortunately
  • 122 Stimmen
    23 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    A
    It's one of those things where periodically someone gets sanctioned and a few others get scared and stop doing it (or tone it down) for a while. I guess SHEIN are either overdoing it or they crossed the popularity threshold where companies become more scrutinized
  • 93 Stimmen
    42 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    G
    You don’t understand. The tracking and spying is the entire point of the maneuver. The ‘children are accessing porn’ thing is just a Trojan horse to justify the spying. I understand what are you saying, I simply don't consider to check if a law is applied as a Trojan horse in itself. I would agree if the EU had said to these sites "give us all the the access log, a list of your subscriber, every data you gather and a list of every IP it ever connected to your site", and even this way does not imply that with only the IP you could know who the user is without even asking the telecom company for help. So, is it a Trojan horse ? Maybe, it heavily depend on how the EU want to do it. If they just ask "show me how you try to avoid that a minor access your material", which normally is the fist step, I don't see how it could be a Trojan horse. It could become, I agree on that. As you pointed out, it’s already illegal for them to access it, and parents are legally required to prevent their children from accessing it. No, parents are not legally required to prevent it. The seller (or provider) is legally required. It is a subtle but important difference. But you don’t lock down the entire population, or institute pre-crime surveillance policies, just because some parents are not going to follow the law. True. You simply impose laws that make mandatories for the provider to check if he can sell/serve something to someone. I mean asking that the cashier of mall check if I am an adult when I buy a bottle of wine is no different than asking to Pornhub to check if the viewer is an adult. I agree that in one case is really simple and in the other is really hard (and it is becoming harder by the day). You then charge the guilty parents after the offense. Ok, it would work, but then how do you caught the offendind parents if not checking what everyone do ? Is it not simpler to try to prevent it instead ?
  • 168 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    A
    Law enforcement officer
  • 33 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    J
    Apparently, it was required to be allowed in that state: Reading a bit more, during the sentencing phase in that state people making victim impact statements can choose their format for expression, and it's entirely allowed to make statements about what other people would say. So the judge didn't actually have grounds to deny it. No jury during that phase, so it's just the judge listening to free form requests in both directions. It's gross, but the rules very much allow the sister to make a statement about what she believes her brother would have wanted to say, in whatever format she wanted. From: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/18471175 influence the sentence From what I've seen, to be fair, judges' decisions have varied wildly regardless, sadly, and sentences should be more standardized. I wonder what it would've been otherwise.