FriendOfDeSoto

Is this happening even for their premium subscribers?

We can all agree kids shouldn’t be watching porn. We do not agree on how to achieve this.

If you were using Photos as a photo roll app you need to stay angry at yourself a while longer. That’s on you when you should know you cannot trust the G. Don’t grant an app permissions to photos and videos that could sync it to the cloud. And as another precaution, don’t keep sensitive pictures in the DCIM folder. If I have to take pictures of sensitive documents like that I disable WiFi (sync set up on WiFi only), take the picture, move it to a folder that’s never backed up elsewhere on my phone, and then turn WiFi back on.

You are not normal because you care about these things. The normal user doesn’t care and that’s who they are catering for. I’m not excusing their behavior (I don’t like it either) and at the same time you need to be more on your toes.

I’m planning to move to Ente this year when my Google cloud subscription runs out. Not looking forward to the work it entails but to the [paints face blue] FREEDOM!

I think the future will surprise us with a new method of digital obfuscation other than bitcoin et al. Crypto is a bit tainted. We can only look at the tools we have available today to make a guess about the future. My belief is that we will come up with something new, something else that isn’t as speculative and volatile. People don’t want their bribes to be devalued because some people found their long forgotten hard drives with crypto wallets and eff up the exchange rate.

Maybe barter is the wrong word in this instance. I mean rudimentary, handshake trade within an equally rudimentary community. Farmer A has wheat, hunter B shot two deer. A agrees to give half a blurb of wheat to B for 2 blorbs worth of prime venison. Both make it through the winter. That’s what I meant.

I’m not Scandinavian or live there, I think they are possibly the most cashless countries today. I’m in Japan where we just moved away from fax machines for banking and cash is very much alive and well. So I don’t have any specific experience to share, just general thoughts.

how much longer until they take cash and browser-based banking from us?

I would question the framing here. I don’t think “the man” will come in and “take it from us.” The move towards digital money and online banking isn’t so much prescribed by a dark cabal than it is driven by convenience. If the majority of people didn’t find anything useful about it, they would not adapt these things like tap to pay or online banking.

Bartering wasn’t made immediately illegal when currency came in. Currency was made to make bartering easier and more fairly divisible. Things changed at a glacial pace to get to our modern economy.

Banks and credit unions do have an incentive to get you to do your banking online. They can close all their locations except for ATMs and get you to do your in-person interactions with a central video call center. That saves them labor costs and they like that.

And security agencies and the revenue service like people spending digital, traceable money. It cuts out the gray area where under the table shenanigans take place.

As far as a push to online banking is concerned, there are a few factors that overlap. The aforementioned labor cost issue for the banks. A lack of legislation or regulations to provide banking that is accessible to preferably all people online. And then there is competing regulations to make it safe for people to use. And with that you run into the issue that you need the two biggest mobile OS’s to get you access via the web or the app that does all. This is where we need to lobby our political leaders and the stance should be: don’t leave grandma in the lurch. We have more old people than young ones in most western countries, old people vote in higher numbers, let’s frame a way to preserve online banking in the most privacy-friendly manner around how an octogenarian should be able to use it safely. I think this is how you cover most bases with a good chance of success, even in the pre-authoritarian US. That should include browser-based banking and authentication means that don’t only depend on Google and Apple.

As far as cash or concerned there will come a point where governments and central banks just throw their hands in the air and say: it’s too expensive to keep printing and then maintaining the money in physical form. That’s it, we go digital, damn a possible apocalypse and the fact that when we do we will be absolutely hosed when that happens. And, realistically, even if we retained physical money during the apocalypse, the economy would still collapse. Wars have shown us that money is quickly replaced by barter of cigarettes, booze, and other desirable or necessary goods. So you’re “only” left with the privacy and liberty considerations to spend cash without anyone keeping a constant ledger. And I fear they will be drowned out by “hey, we can stamp out all drug trafficking” promises. Not realizing that like most rivers finding the sea most drug traffic participants will find a way in the new digital only system as well. And that gives me hope. I think we will see physical cash disappear this century. But at the same pace, people will find ways to avoid being tracked.

What can you do? Keeping your fingers crossed, become politically engaged with parties who want to protect old people in an online banking world, and vote for politicians who want to preserve cash. Just know that your best funded co campaigners will be the mob and tax dodgers.

That’s not universally true. Necrophiles may be past that, according to preference.

But everyone deserves a threat and if you live in the USA, then tip is required…

That typo is more apt than intended.

but nobody is discussing this initiative

Well, go ahead. Discuss it. I don’t know what it is.

No. This is how the legal system works. When you appeal to a higher court, they can make a call themselves when massive mistakes were made at the lower level or they can say the lower court overlooked something and then make them redo their work. It’s a convenient choice for the higher judges not to have to do more work themselves. But it’s part of the process.

Loosely defined legal terms. A “computer program” can be copyrighted. You can write your own that does the same thing but you cannot copy the other code and slap your label on it. With a lot of imagination and bending the words of the shitty outdated law, you could say a website is also a “computer program.” You cannot just go into the code and change it, e.g. by blocking ads. The lower court ruling didn’t take this possible interpretation into account and now has to rule again with this in mind. Nothing’s been decided yet. We’re running a little hot in this thread on misleading headlines.

You would be building it on pretty much the same legal foundations. So it will just be history repeating.

Let’s take a deep breath and consider what’s happened. The Federal Court of Justice has sent the case back to the lower court. They have not ruled on anything. They have not said ad blocking is piracy. They have essentially said: lower court, you had 25 boxes to tick but you only ticked 24 in your ruling. Go back and do one that ticks all of them.

It’s entirely possible that the lower court will change its ruling based on the intricacies of German copyright law, which is shit. But it’s not very likely if you ask me. Regardless, whoever loses will appeal it again. This rodeo is far from over. And when it’s eventually over the technology will have moved on, with any luck the law along with it, and the only beneficiaries will have been the lawyers.

So the headline should read more like “German court does not rule out that ad blocking could be a copyright infringement.”

The argument that Axel Springer is just doing it for their love of democracy is also comical. Media pluralism is important, I agree with them that far, but they are stuck in an outdated mindset. They launched a silly tabloid Fox News wannabe TV channel and failed. They are trying to force eyeballs on their content like you are at a news agent. Meanwhile, news is happening on TikTok and so-called AI is going to reduce their page views to dust. By the time we get a final ruling they will have pivoted strategy 10 times to keep the c-suite in caviar while the established media business that made them successful is rotting away under their assess.

[Find in Page:] “Parent”=0 “Parents”=0 “Father”=0 “Mother”=0

It’s their job to guard their kids from this content first and foremost. It’s their job to put it into context for their children. But the article doesn’t even mention that any of this is a humongous failing of parents.

Next this commissioner will want to outlaw computer mice because they’re used to click pornographic content without verifying the age of the finger on the button. And roads because adult content actors use them to get to jobs.

The way forward is not banning or making worse all sorts of useful tools as collateral damage in this “think of the children” campaign. It is to get all adult content everywhere behind a barrier toddlers cannot break. We were fine with porn mags partially obscured on the top shelf at a news agent when that was a thing. And the salesperson making sure the customer wasn’t a minor. The solution isn’t closing all digital news agents.

And it’s quite telling that the existence of VPNs didn’t play a bigger part in this UK online safety initiative. Like it wasn’t obvious that when the west entrance to porn central was closed off, people wouldn’t naturally look for the ones in east, north, and south.

Edited typo

Just out of interest: what’s on FB messenger that makes all the things you are willing to do to circumvent the grubby data tentacles worth it? I’m just asking because I came to the conclusion not to use FB a while ago and I haven’t looked back.

We must hang out in very different circles then.

I don’t think it will be a big win for the Palestinians. One reason why this hasn’t happened in the past is that there is no reliable, functional government in place that governs over all of the territory. You had Hamas in Gaza and the PLO in most of the West Bank and they don’t see eye to eye. This hasn’t changed. It will be difficult for these established governments to cooperate with a a fractured non-functional one so the benefits for the Palestinian people will only be patchy and homeopathic.

So I fear recognizing a Palestinian state is actually an impotent, diplomatic gesture - like: “we see what’s going on there, it’s horrible, and we don’t have the resolve to do anything else to bring Israel back to the status quo ante.” It’s finger wagging at Israel more than actual support for the Palestinians. It’s a gesture that can easily be reversed as well, like the orange one moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. And I think that’s why these announcements of recognition fall on very deaf ears in Tel Aviv. It’s political theater for the audiences in the countries whose governments have announced this. “Look, we are doing something! (But we’re doing not that much really, we could do other things as well, isolate the Israeli government and/or cut it off palpably from necessary economic and military supply chain support. But we won’t. It’s a complicated conundrum, that Middle East. And we’re not quite ready to jeopardize the existence of Israel over this.)”

I think it is hard though, legislatively, as the RTBF already proves. It’s a terribly vague set of rules that put search engines in the position where they have to evaluate a claim and then sit in judgement over it with little to no oversight and then only a public form of objection if this somehow ends up in a court. This is not a good process. Adding more reasons to use a bad process doesn’t sound like a great idea regardless of how well intentioned they are.

An issue I see are massive Streisand effects. One is occurring if you need to take a Google to court for not following up on your RTBF claim. Nobody really cared about your drunk driving incident from 2019 until you fill the headlines with your court proceedings. Now everybody knows. The other is this: let’s say Roberta became Robert. Calling him Roberta would be dead naming him. But if every time I framed it as “Robert Streisand (known until 2023 as Roberta Streisand)” I’m merely stating fact and I don’t see how many courts will intervene against that. Why can virtually everybody still dead name Chelsea Manning? Because every time her name was mentioned post transition they added this factual context. So all you will achieve in the end is that all trolls and dickheads will just use the legally defendable boiler plate phrase. And hang a much brighter lantern on the issue.

Just to be clear: I’m not defending anybody deadnaming somebody else. I’m just looking at this issue, the RTBF, and I’m thinking of that road to hell and with what it is paved.

I don’t think the people who do the happiness statistic could see past the “forcibly inject” part.

It turned out to be a Twitter clone from ten years ago and I realized I didn’t need that any more. If I didn’t need to reach some people who cannot overcome the hurdle the fediverse proper puts up before being enjoyable, I would not be using it today. But media popularity post-Elon-Twitter and relative ease of setup have given the platform relative heft. But it’s not open and not really federated so it’s masquerading and we don’t really want you know whose money is paying the bills behind the scenes either. If anything, the fediverse can learn from Bluesky a thing or two about onboarding people who cannot be asked to invest the time to make Mastodon enjoyable. It will take time, much more time, to get people, especially non-techy ones, to the new normal of being your own algorithm. I see Bluesky as a stepping stone in that direction that will survive in its own niche.