I guess, so the law at present seems mostly made up. Like, it can’t deal with glaring issues without a precedent and what amounts to a long-winded ritual before significant issues are considered.
I guess I don’t see why a corp can’t be accountable like how some people who commit petty crimes are ‘held accountable’ (i.e. shot, killed, worked in labour camps).
i think one small addition
yeah i’m rethinking some stuff too, even in some utopia i think some information related to me might make life inconvenient, so the best way to protect that (e.g. not disclosing it digitally) maybe needs outta the box solutions.
related, does anyone even bother to look at physical mail for stuff? like if i put a cipher in a letter with no return address, using that pen ink that you can erase (which comes back if you put it in a freezer) and only i and my contact have the key to the cipher which we exchanged in-person; could anyone reasonably know it?
it seems digital stuff might be a carrot for surveillance people, maybe it can be made into a honeypot and physical or analog means can make a return.
Hi, could you touch on why F-Droid is less safe? Is it because they package (I think that’s the term?) stuff themselves?
Yeah, fair. It can’t delete your messages to the extent a centralized system, and that’s an indication of the lack of centralized control? It’s a different threat model I think many find satisfying (though perhaps not most).
I think most of your criticism makes sense.
The part about “not reading private messages” I think is mistaken, or rather, maybe amiss. I mean I don’t have evidence, so this is all conjecture. The sophistication of data surveillance and data gathering makes the content of the message rather meaningless in my view.
EDIT: Oh, I don’t think any adversaries of US, even if working together, make any meaningful threat towards it. It’s really hard to imagine, esp. considering the US has a bunch of successful coups & stuff under their belt.
Huh, would it be possible to provide a source? I might be bad at searching, I’m not finding anything…
I don’t think they are federated? Neither is the other big community whatever it’s called.
i think the notion of ‘convincing’ is the issue. it really needs to be done by men, it’s not as though what women are saying is factually incorrect or the content is off, it’s often the opposite i find. when i say what women or feminists i respect say i always seem to get a better response than if a woman said it or the original author said it.
it’s such a shame, there’s already a ton of work done by a sizeable proportion of the population and it’s ignored or misconstrued :/
contemporary feminism (and the wave immediately before) have done a lot more for me than how men have told me I ‘ought’ to act. fine, I’m not as manly or a man as far as some are concerned. what is really annoying is the apathy and close-mindedness of most of these men who interacted with me negatively.
asking a few questions is enough to make them emotional (which is fine when they do it and not ok when others do it in a way unlike their own) and more intensely emotional than nearly all women i’ve interacted with. that too is fine, it becomes a pain when i’m taken to be some kind of enemy or other by standards it seems like they cannot apply to themselves.
i want to say they are gaslighting, only, i really don’t think it’s intentional. there’s a genuine misunderstanding and that’s annoying as heck.
I appreciated the info. I agree too! The circle v thing in your profile name is cool.
Ah yes very fair. I did not do a close reading and missed that, I did not notice or see how careful you were with your language, your explanation is much appreciated!
Wow, appreciate the resources. Commenting to view this later…
I think that’s fair.
Is the presumption that any confusion from labelling them as such is actually not anywhere near the value of like pointing out the alleged truthfulness which comes from the analogy made by labelling people in Israel as such?
Sorry for the direct language I have ASD, I’m just trying to understand what people mean usually but it’s been told to me that it is rude or offensive so I apologize if that is the case.
They might be saying that they don’t give the same weight to the kinds of information on ‘the same news’ perhaps because there’s other stuff he’s paying attention to. Idk, that sounds pretty reasonable to me. I think it’s easy to say people at the top of the political pyramid don’t value human lives the same as those at the base.
Yeah I guess if I could add free time and money and make it so everyone is happy I would add it.