redjard @ Redjard @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Keyoxide: [aspe:keyoxide.org:KI5WYVI3WGWSIGMOKOOOGF4JAE](https://keyoxide.o

---

Read more

Posts

2

Comments

449

Joined

2 yr. ago

I disagree.
Some months ago I had weird behavior with compose sequences, I went on the ff c, made a post on it, and there was a fruitfull discussion leading to pinning it on gtk doing compose sequences weirdly. No hate was experienced.

::/0

Hallstein was a member of several nominally Nazi professional organizations, but he was not a member of the Nazi Party or of the SA. He is reputed to have rejected Nazi ideology and to have kept his distance from the Nazis. There was opposition from Nazi officials to his proposed appointment, in 1941, as professor of law at the University of Frankfurt, but the academics pushed through his candidacy, and he soon advanced to become dean of the faculty.

Hallstein began his academic career in the 1920s Weimar Republic and became Germany's youngest law professor in 1930, at the age of 29. During World War II he served as a First Lieutenant in the German Army in France. Captured by American troops in 1944, he spent the rest of the war in a prisoner-of-war camp in the United States, where he organised a "camp university" for his fellow soldiers.

I don't see how he is a Nazi

I usually select from bottom for those, that way the sticky ends up above the selected area when it sticks to the top.
In other more complex cases your method is a good aproach though

*MI5

Where is YouTube ReVanced?

I'm not sure that Huawei is considered worse because of US propaganda for everyone, or even most, but I can accept some.
I know a few people that certainly had their issues with them before I ever saw them even mentioned in the general media or online, before the propaganda we se now started.

In any case, if you say "that propaganda is not substantiated", then can you please elaborate what specific claims where made and are wrong? Because as propaganda does they use everything negative about something and then make up some more, so if it's all unsubstantiated wouldn't that mean Huawei is absolute good and has never done anything even slightly bad?

My claims are that:

• Huawei collects users private information, that they have no business and no reason collecting
• if the CCP asks, Huawei will comply
  • in handing over user data
  • in not shipping or threatening to not ship components for infrastructure for geopolitical reasons (the thing most countries claiming as their reason to ban Huawei from their infrastructure)
• Huawei is not worker owned, though they claim to be (this ones new after the other discussion I linked above)

⁤
Some of my reasons for believing this are in this comment I linked above.

Outline your claims, or refute evidence for mine, or add evidence against mine

Did you not listen? I started with saying that your evidence wasn't relevant to the matter at hand. This is about smartphones, not telco equipment.

Then I partially agreed with you on the uk case, and explained why your source on the german case was utter trash, and wrong.

There are no relevant facts for your original point on the ground, you didn't bring any and I showed why. You spent your time moving goalposts and bringing up new unrelated issues.

The current state of the discussion is:

• the uk may have been influenced by the us to be harsher on huawei than need be
• both germany and the uk had and have consensus on some suspicions against huawei
• the suspicions in the uk where present before and got amplified after us action
• those suspicions are multi-factored, some of which apply to us as individuals and some do not

Your original claim was:
Huawei is better than Google, fear of Huawei is solely cause by propaganda.

No arguments have been made yet, the discussion has gone nowhere because I was stuck refuting your side-projects.

If you wanna look at actual facts, see for example this comment I made to someone elses .
There I go into some issues with Huawei itself, and the relations of it to the chinese government, as well as indications that they are trying to hide those for image reasons. That is a fact-based source that the relations are real, that they are creating propaganda to hide that, and why they would do that. If you are looking for facts go look at that.

I do not refute that the US is propagandizing against Huawei, and that they are influencing other governments to follow their decisions against Huawei, and thus their media influence to be directed to defending that and propagandizing against Huawei too.
I agree that this is happening, and I highly dislike it.

Just because a side is using propaganda, doesn't mean they are wrong. Being careful we can filter out some facts, then filter those for what is relevant to us as consumers. And we end up with the result that Huawei smartphones are a privacy nightmare, basically any consumer tech with their software and internet access is, and should be avoided. Components and hardware by them is probably fine for now, so if are going to replace their software, or are gonna sandbox their devices, then to a consumer I see no reason not to buy from them (as opposed to governments, where there are valid reasons not to).

To summarize:

• you can (should) be against Huawei based on facts alone
• governments can ban Huawei for valid reasons
• your sources and reading comprehension suck

Huawei Smartphones collect a lot of data from their users and send it to Huawei[1], and the founder of Huawei has very strong relations to the Chinese government[2].

[1] https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279942 "On the data privacy practices of Android OEMs"
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren_Zhengfei "Ren Zhengfei [...] is the founder and CEO of Huawei Technologies [...]. He is a member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)."

A company being employee owned is a very good sign, but mainly for worker treatment. Huawei is still not managed by all of its employees; a few people in upper management are tasked to represent the owners interest, and in that process, as per usual, morals get diluted.

You can see this by the facts that Huawei phones still violate user privacy by collecting copious amounts of data on them, or that Huawei knowingly supplies surveillance equipment to the CCP, that is used in areas where a lot of Uyghurs live and in the not-concentration-camps that reeducate Uyghurs .

Besides that, I also just came across "Huawei states it is an employee-owned company, but this remains a point of dispute" on their wikipedia article, which at a cursory look appears to have some good points against that statement behind it.
The paper about that is here https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3372669

In summary, we find the following:

• The Huawei operating company is 100% owned by a holding company, which is in turn approximately 1% owned by Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei and 99% owned by an entity called a “trade union committee” for the holding company.
• We know nothing about the internal governance procedures of the trade union committee. We do not know who the committee members or other trade union leaders are, or how they are selected.
• Trade union members have no right to assets held by a trade union.
• What have been called “employee shares” in “Huawei” are in fact at most contractual interests in a profit-sharing scheme.
• Given the public nature of trade unions in China, if the ownership stake of the trade union committee is genuine, and if the trade union and its committee function as trade unions generally function in China, then Huawei may be deemed effectively state-owned.
• Regardless of who, in a practical sense, owns and controls Huawei, it is clear that the employees do not.

So at every path we come to the same conclusion, the CCP will get your data, and about as much of it as google (and probably the US government) if you used their operating system and services.

Huawei is about as trustworthy as your average trillion dollar corporation, and about as devious with their whitewashing as all others too. Google is masquerading as pro-privacy, apple as pro-repair and pro-environment, and Huawei as pro-worker and state-independent, because they all aren't but would profit if they where perceived to be

First of, your articles are about telco hardware, not smartphones software.

The german case basically boils down to Germany wanting independence in their critical infrastructure. At least officially this is so China can't affect them by for example stopping exports of repair components. Basically your source is clickbait but without the release. »German governments information security branch says no evidence of Huawei spying ... they say the boycott happened because of strategic resource independence in networking technology«

The space of classical newspaper articles is not in a good state, basically it's almost entirely propagandized to death. So you need to know your sources, please don't be the one throwing around a phys.org article on politics like it's credible information.

⁤
your source kinda goes into that direction at the end at least

But some observers raised eyebrows at the BSI's apparent dismissal of cyber security risks concerning Huawei.

"I believe it's wrong to suggest that the concerns about Chinese espionage are unfounded and easy to detect," telecom security expert Ronja Kniep told AFP.

"Even if Huawei has no official relationship with the Chinese government, that doesn't mean Chinese services aren't using the company and its technology as vehicles for espionage."

All three of Germany's main mobile network operators use infrastructure provided by Huawei, Spiegel pointed out.

So apparently the opinion of "the BSI" here is wildly out of line with Germany's government's general opinion at the time.

but wait there's more

So apparently in Germany there is this "BSI-gate" of sorts, around the incompetence and potential Russian and Chinese relations of "Germany's Federal Office for Information Security (BSI), Arne Schoenbohm" (as he is quoted in your source).
So either way this person was extremely untrustworthy in this matter here.

⁤

So now to the other source. Reuters is at least well known, and the article has an author, so that's nice.

I looked into the matter somewhat. Around the same date as your article, the BBC wrote

To monitor the company, the UK set up the Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre, which comes under the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC).

In March 2019, it said it hadn't found evidence of malicious Chinese state activity, but it did identify some serious defects in Huawei's software engineering and cyber-security competence.

Seems they harshened their stance after US influence around 2020 to me too, but it's not like they where entirely unsuspicious before that influence either.

And they occasionally need to be debated anyway.
Like with conspiracies and religious cults, not debating them allows them to pull people in, while debating them both gives those vulnerable the ability to see the issues with them, and it allows those already believing a pathway to exit.

I have seen plenty of independent hate, and my hown hate has certainly developed independently too.
Even in politics other countries have come to the same conclusion, some of which even against US influence, while certainly others where pulled along by them.

Also did you notice that you jsut assumed I was completely influenced by the US, as in that you hold the innate belief that everyone who disagrees on this must obviously be doing so because they fell victim to their propaganda?

I didn’t actually bring google into this at all.

I’d trust a Huawei phone less than I would a Google phone. Much less.

[your comment]

So you are saying that Huawei is better than Google, because Huawei has less suspicion about it than the US government, because we should not conflate a company from a country with the government og that country?

While you are conflating Google and the US government without even so much as acknowledging that?

If we are being fair, we must accept both the USA and China have the means to get data out of their companies, and have done so frequently. If we thus compare either Google and Huawei or USA and China, in both cases we can make out the shinier turd of the two clearly.

Now can we go back to hating both of them please?

Mainly it's number of lenses.
High quality camera lenses have like 10-20 lenses, while glasses have ... 1

Fuck smartphones, I wanna finally have glasses that are thin, light, and without distortions, reflections, or chromatic aberration

That doesn't align itself to the dimensions of an element. The screenshot thingy even allows you to screenshot past the visible area for scrollable pages

Media integration should be done via mpris which ff does natively now, so that's no longer done by the plasma addon

Can you install a detailled permission control app like

The EU is doing all they can here. They require EU citizens need a way to have their data deleted, within 1 month or after a response with specific reasons within 3 months.

This ofc makes companies act like this for accounts located inside the EU. Then further, every EU citizen outside the EU has a right to this too, so if a company chooses to geolock the deletion feature, all those outside citizens act as a minefield and strain on the system until they stop geolocking the feature.

This then means everyone (EU citizens or not) can manually contact support, both straining their system and making them look into making this process as difficult as possible. This will inevitably lead to them blocking actual EU citizens outside the EU, who can then sue them until they stop locking the feature and make it available to everyone. The company can't just ask for some legal document proving citizenship either, since that itself would be a gdpr violation. So the end state has to be a system that everyone can use - EU citizen or not.

The EU can't demand anything about non-citizens, so as I see it this is the best they can do, by demanding certain rights only to their citizens. The downside is it may take years and a few court battles, but the final state should be the law applying for all users.

hot is not a good sort