Melpomene

I’ve never been “friends” with thousands of people. If I had 100 people on Facebook, I maybe spent real world time with a dozen and we did have phone numbers so…

I was in this boat too. Gave it some thought and realized that if my “friend” group was so uninterested in including me that none of then could be bothered to shoot me a text, then… they weren’t really my friends in the first place.

The article reads like a low key hit piece, the report is good and has food for thought.

As an aside, always look at anything NCMEC says with a critical eye. They do great work in their space, but they are vehemently anti-decentralization and anti-privacy.

If an instance is sharing content that another instance finds problematic, then defederation makes sense. Regardless, though, it seems like lemmynsfw is doing their due diligence to handle illegal content. We all know that porn will exist… having good stewards of those communities is vital. Punishing them for providing a (legal) porn platform is counterproductive.

In my experience, #3 tends to factor in the most for civil cases. I would also say that people need to remember that for civil cases, the intent of a lawsuit is to receive just compensation for / rectify a wrong. Looking at the court system as the last step in a long process of trying to resolve the dispute helps people understand why so many cases are settled before court.

1. Discussion between parties
2. (Sometimes) formal arbitration
3. Pre-court settlement discussions
4. Court case

Given the length of the process, the uncertainty of a trial, and the expense… it often makes more sense to settle if one can.

There was a better article somewhere that detailed what they thought was the dishonesty around Brave’s claim that they respect robots.txt. Even so, this isn’t to do with the browser. There are interesting copyright questions here, but it doesn’t have anything to do with privacy per se.

100% agree, and this is where I come out. Speak your mind as a fascist and get wrecked with social censure.

People conflate “ban bad actions” and “ban speech” when discussing tolerance; separating those is important. We should ABSOLUTELY ban violence and refuse to acknowledge laws and systems that advocate for those things. We should be both vocal and active in our rejections.

Speech is a separate issue. As stupid as antivaxxers are, as hateful as TERFs are, I don’t want government telling them they can’t speak. Any law we pass, we should ask ourselves how it might be abused by a bad actor. Better, at least to me, is to out and ruin anyone who expresses hateful, bigoted views.

True. I isolated the LG and such in a DMZ so its at least not mapping my internals. And with it being isolated, all it knows is that I have a PS5 and I like murder mysteries and fantasy.

I do have a spare Pi, though. Hmm.

I guess it comes down to who I want tracking me, no? I lack a Google account.

Simply put? Meeting her is a bad idea because you very clearly have feelings for your ex. If you’re having feelings then that’s something you might want to discuss that with your wife too… she’s been incredibly accepting so far, but you realizing you still have feelings (or might) is something you need to be honest about.

What is your intent in meeting your former flame for coffee? What are you hoping will happen? What are you afraid might happen?

Simply put? Meeting her is a bad idea because you very clearly have feelings for your ex. If you’re having feelings then that’s something you might want to discuss that with your wife too… she’s been incredibly accepting so far, but you realizing you still have feelings (or might) is something you need to be honest about.

What is your intent in meeting your former flame for coffee? What are you hoping will happen? What are you afraid might happen?

Given that they recently updated my LGTV to have more ads with no way to disable them, well… not surprised.

Given the fact that Signal is E2EE, “full access” would mean “full access to encrypted data without the keys to unencrypt it,” which is why E2EE is important in the first place. Were Signal compromised, US representatives would not resurrect the EARN IT Act year after year in an attempt to make E2EE illegal.

No one had provided a shred of evidence that Signal has been compromised. And given that they’re more willing to pull out of a country entirely v. compromising user data, I’d call them a pretty safe bet.

That would be the concern. The “for the children” argument is often how governments open the door; after they establish a precedent (disposables are bad) they can start scaling up to other aspects using the same argument.

“Children are buying vape stuff in pretty colors!” “Children like the pretty vapor!” Etc.

Hey, I think you might need this:

https://www.udemy.com/course/communication-fundamentals-how-to-communicate-better/

Except they DID have enough information as this entire conversation is taking place under a “UK is considering banning disposable vapes” thread. The “well actually” is strong in this one.

No, you were intentionally ignoring the obvious context to score internet points. Either you knew the context and ignored it to be a jerk, or you honestly misinterpreted the context and tripled down when you realized you were wrong.

Ah yes, a shame if someone ignored it etc etc.

Took a page out of the Tumblr handbook.