kitsunekun
Now
•
100%
"As reported by Business Insider, the conversation according to SAI sources, went as follows.
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask.
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks."
kitsunekun
Now
•
33%
Feel free to ban me anytime. I will make sure not to come back after the fact, too. After today, I don't see much of a difference between this place and Reddit when it comes to attitudes, anyway. At least Reddit has a huge user base, and you can engage more people. So if banning me helps anything, go ahead!
Cheers
kitsunekun
Now
•
50%
I believe I switched to Qwant after I read your commentary on Startpage. It works quite well and others should certainly give it a try.
kitsunekun
Now
•
20%
Well, let's agree to disagree on the "derailing" topic. As for insulting people, I just said his comment was dumb. I don't see how that's an insult. Even intelligent people say dumb stuff from time to time, nothing wrong with it, I do say dumb stuff as well.
kitsunekun
Now
•
10%
It's just clown world manifesting itself here. Don't think too much of it.
Some people deserve mockery and derision, and I'm happy to provide it. Heck, even I deserve it from time to time and I have no issue taking it when that's the case.
kitsunekun
Now
•
85%
When the New York Times speaks, people listen to them. But even the NYT may not be able to change politicians and Silicon Valley's attitudes towards privacy in the USA.
It is still a good sign when the Times brings it up for discussion, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for things to change shortly, unfortunately.
kitsunekun
Now
•
15%
Childish and pathetic. As others have commented and pointed out, it's real, the topic is legitimate, but no, "breitbardddddd badddddddd" is all you can say lmao
kitsunekun
Now
•
16%
Agree 100%. But no, all of a sudden "breitbarddd badddd, oranje mannn baddd" lmao and the topic at hand can go to hell in a privacy oriented sub of all places!
kitsunekun
Now
•
33%
Thanks for staying on topic, mate.
kitsunekun
Now
•
15%
And what happens to the individual that came to my thread with the explicit intention of derailing it without any consideration? Let me guess? Nothing. As others have pointed out, the topic at hand is legitimate, but all the negative attention now is on me and the source. How ridiculous!
You sure are on your way to become Reddit with this double standard! Keep it up.
kitsunekun
Now
•
20%
Then I invite you to read the text, and you be the judge, mate.
kitsunekun
Now
•
12%
Unsure if you are being sarcastic. But the level of idiocy and self-absorbedness required to make that first post complaining about the source rather than what's reported says a lot about the person: "hey, look, it's not a source I like, therefore it's invalid".
Typical American narcissism.
kitsunekun
Now
•
66%
Unfortunately, you will also find it here, but it manifests to a lesser degree.
kitsunekun
Now
•
11%
Dumb comment is dumb.
EDIT: please stay on topic, as the rules for this sub encourage it: Try to keep things on topic
www.breitbart.com
Ignore the fact that it's coming from Breitbart. This is really freaky in more than one way. FTA: Against stiff competition, the alliance of tech and media giants has devised a plan that may constitute Big Tech’s most brazen power-grab yet. According to Microsoft’s press release, it has partnered with several other organizations to form the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA). Put simply, the purpose of this organization is to devise a system whereby all content on the internet can be traced back to its author. The press release states that it will develop these specifications for “common asset types and formats,” meaning videos, documents, audio, and images. Whether it’s a meme, an audio remix, or a written article, the goal is to ensure that when content reaches the internet, it will come attached with a set of signals allowing its provenance — meaning authorship — can be detected.
kitsunekun
Now
•
80%
Try Qwant. I like it more than ddgo.
kitsunekun
Now
•
94%
I doubt anyone here trusts Google to not do scummy things.
kitsunekun
Now
•
50%
The idea of banning people, to be honest, was a bit of hyperbole.
I clarified that a bit with this comment:
Don’t ban people if you don’t want to, that’s fine, but at least be aware of what’s happening and what people really mean when they say that we should be more “moderate” or “sound less crazy”.
To be fair I agree with you. All I want people to take from this thread is that we need to tread carefully when dealing with the "be more moderate" crowd. I don't believe, at all, that they have good intentions until demonstrated otherwise.
If people can leave this thread with that takeaway alone, I will be more than satisfied. The banning and extracurricular activities are more hyperbole than anything else to be honest.
And yes! Kudos to you for allowing dissenting opinions. Remember when I posted to your Subreddit about why we should be distrustful of Signal? You were the only one who allowed me to say that out loud and look, today, I was validated; but back in the day all I got was a kick in the proverbial mouth and lots of censorship from the mainstream "privacy" subs.
Cheers my friend.
kitsunekun
Now
•
50%
Man you are so off the mark. No one is advocating for utopias. Quite the opposite: guard communities like this one from subversion and people whose only interest is to call you crazy and to tell you to shut up, because, you know, "iF yOu DoN'T hAvE aNyThiNg To HiDe..." etc etc...
Don't be naive, please.
kitsunekun
Now
•
80%
This. I sounded the alarm on signal a few months ago: https://lemmy.ml/post/47340
kitsunekun
Now
•
90%
I warned you guys about this: https://lemmy.ml/post/47340
I came across a few comments and topics here telling people who strongly advocate for privacy to be more "moderate", and to "sound less crazy". People who say that should be ignored and even banned if they persist. Time and time again privacy advocates and skeptics of the "if you don't have anything to hide you shouldn't worry" have been proven right, while the other side has been proven wrong. Remember when James Clapper lied in front of congress? I do. Remember when Snowden used to be glorified as long as it served the purpose of the media and some politicians? I do. How do people think of Snowden now? As a traitor, a rat, someone who should be executed. Privacy is a universal human right, we all deserve to have some. Yet, being welcoming and open to people who are here to set obstacles for us at every step is not only counterproductive but foolish. They clearly don't care about privacy, and they certainly don't care if others lose it, so why should we welcome them here and embrace their drivel and gibberish with open arms? They are a detriment to our cause. My two cents.
They may be sponsored by the US Government, or by cryptographers with ties to the government. https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-crypto-keepers-levine It's a long read, but it's quite good. Here's a snippet to whet your palate where he describes some of the prominent people behind these projects: *At least that’s how they saw themselves. My reporting revealed a different reality. As I found out by digging through financial records and FOIA requests, many of these self-styled online radicals were actually military contractors, drawing salaries with benefits from the very same U.S. national security state they claimed to be fighting. Their spunky crypto-tech also turned out, on closer inspection, to be a jury-rigged and porous Potemkin Village version of secure digital communications. What’s more, the relevant software here was itself financed by the U.S. government: millions of dollars a year flowing to crypto radicals from the Pentagon, the State Department, and organizations spun off from the CIA.* For context: I have become very interested in the debate amongst app users such as Telegram, Signal, Threema, etc... and I know that many people claim that Signal is the very best amongst all of them but there's something really sketchy about its location (US based) and the fact that the government can for anyone to comply with their orders and forbid them from telling anyone about it via gag orders (see Durov's comments on this: https://t.me/durov/59). Both are fascinating reads, and certainly help me appreciate platforms like Telegram and Threema even more. Regarding Threema, today they posted a comparison between their app and the competition, and found this interesting tidbit regarding Signal: https://threema.ch/en/blog/posts/messenger-comparison-2021 *Signal enjoys an outstanding reputation among experts, and it’s certainly a good alternative to WhatsApp. However, just like WhatsApp, it requires users to disclose personally identifiable information: Providing a phone number is mandatory. As a US company, Signal is also subject to the CLOUD Act, which entitles US authorities to access data from IT service providers that are based in the US.* Also: I just learned that FB spends millions of dollars every year on marketing and trying to influence people to not use platforms such as telegram.
Now