Amju Wolf @ amju_wolf @pawb.social

Posts

2

Comments

368

Joined

2 yr. ago

Because while you do have control (and "copies") of the source code repository, that's not really true for the ecosystem around it - tickets, pull requests, ...

If Microsoft decided to fuck you over you'd have a hard time migrating the "community" around that source code somewhere else.

Obviously depends on what features you are using, but for example losing all tickets would be problematic for any projects.

Apparently Mozilla won't be even accepting PRs there so it doesn't matter much.

Noone would care if they only had a monopoly in the search engine market. But they are also the biggest ad network, email provider and browser maker, and they also own the (effectively only) video platform.

Your system is most likely way less secure than you think. I mean, possibly not since you're here, but most schemes are trivial to solve even automatically.

...and that doesn't really matter either, because so many people have such shitty passwords (and use the same ones everywhere) that noone really bothers checking for permutations when they have thousands of valid accounts.

But if truly enough people are convinced to be more secure your scheme may eventually become a target, too.

With passkeys (and password managers in general) the security gets so good that the vast majority of current attacks on passeord protection get obsolete.

Realistically this is the biggest overall advantage.

Sure, there are minor advantages to people already using password managers, but that's such a tiny minority of people...

Ehh it's not that simple either way.

Like, platforms don't actually own your data and usually explicitly state so; if for no reason other than not having liability for what you post.

If they did actually own the data (beyond having the very broad license to use it) they'd also have to curate 100% of it, otherwise they'd get sued to oblivion by copyright holders and whatnot.

Didn't know that's the case, that's neat though it doesn't solve the redirect back to your home instance.

It'll also probably lead to centralization because if you're more likely to find a particular instance through search and decide to join Lemmy you're probably going to do so on that instance.

The point of random GUIDs is that there are so many that it's effectively impossible to generate duplicates just by random chance. They'd be perfect for this.

The initial instance picks it, and then the federated instances use it.

It's ambiguous only if you expect people to not use punctuation 😅.

But yeah I can see how it could be confusing. Unfortunately I don't think there's a mark for showing that a comma was omitted deliberately, lol.

Ideally, yeah. Practically, shit like stickers or media sharing is way more important to the vast majority of people.

Indeed. That's literally what I said.

Yes, this would be possible (and not too hard technically either). But all instances would have to agree to link this instance as canonical.

You'd also want to add a feature where you can set you home instance where this canonical instance would redirect you (perhaps even automatically). Home Assistant does something like that.

What pisses me most about Lemmy is that each instance has its own post IDs which means that crosslinking and switching instances based purely on URLs is impossible.

IMO posts should have random GUIDs for IDs; that would help a ton with these kinds of issues. It'd then be trivial for Google to detect same content (if they wish) this way

You're completely wrong.

This means that they will implement it, and then it's only a tiny change to make it available everywhere if they decide to do so later.

The option alone also now also allows people to build stuff that will only work in those WebViews, rejecting to work without the integrity check, which is already a huge loss.

No Telegram chats are end-to-end encrypted by default. And I don't know anyone who'd use the feature regularly (it's a hassle).

And, to be fair, it's not really necessary for most day to day messaging.

Well that makes it reason number 4379 to not use Chrome.

Do these actually work against HDCP? (Outside using a camera, obviously). I know it used to work decently well against most "ordinary" attacks like VMs and capture cards.

They could use stream encryption (DRM) to ensure you're viewing the ads as expected and make it hard to capture and playback.

You cannot create information from nothing.

Arguably that's exactly what generative AIs do. Which is not what you meant, but yeah. I was going more for like "given current progress and advancements in how we curate datasets and whatnot, there is no reason to believe that we won't have 100% undistinguishable AI-generated pictures eventually".

We already know that you don't need to have stuff in the training dataset to have it show up meaningfully in the output.

Psychologists/Psychiatrists are still on the fence on that one, I wouldn’t be surprised if it depends on the person. And yes the external harm produced by AI images is definitely lower than that produced from actual CSAM, doubly so newly produced CSAM, but that doesn’t mean that therapy, even in its current early stages, couldn’t do even better.

100% agree there. What I would like to see is more research, but that's currently kinda impossible with CSAM being as criminalized as it is. Which is kinda sad.

Therapy seems to work on most help-seeking people (and there are studies proving that), so this should be a last ditch effort.

The rest of your post I don't agree with. It isn't really (definitely not exclusively) a societal problem - some people's brains are simply wired in a way that's just bad and there isn't much you can do with it, and either these people suffer by living with it, or they cause harm to others because of it. Both is bad.

The vast majority of paedophiles are not exclusive paedophiles, often they’re not even really attracted to kids at all beyond having developed a fetish, they’re rapists focussing on the most vulnerable, often due to having been victims of sexual abuse themselves.

Do you have any statistics proving this? It's exactly the bias that already makes non-acting pedophiles unlikely to seek help. Obviously these kinds of people are the ones you hear most about, but I wouldn't be so sure that they're the majority (even if they're most of the problem).

My point is that if you take it as people who need help and actually manage to provide it, you should be able to get the number of abuse down overall except for the people who truly can't be helped. And it really doesn't matter much how you provide that help, even if it's morally questionable like using artificially generated CSAM.

Artificial or not, this isn't really a new idea. A similar argument can be made for existing CSAM and providing it under controlled conditions.

And yeah, "nobody knows", in huge part because doing such a study would be highly illegal under current CSAM laws in most parts of the world. So, paradoxically, you can't even legally study how to help those people, even if they actively want to be helped and want to help you do research on it.

Edit: Also, I'm not really making any assumptions; I literally said "there is an argument to be made". I'm not making that argument because I don't actually know enough. Just saying that it's an option that should be explored.

A "weird fetish" is, quite literally a paraphilia, just like pedophilia. We only care about the latter because it has the potential to hurt people if acted upon. There's no difference, medically speaking.

A lot of the comments in here seem a little bit too sympathetic.

When you want to solve an issue you need to understand the people having it and have some compassion, which tends to include stuff like defending people who didn't actually do anything harmful from being grouped with the kind who do act on their urges.

I see where you're coming from but that's a technical issue that will probably be solved in time.

It's also really not a black and white; sure maybe you can see it isn't perfect but you'd still prefer it to content where you know no one was actually harmed.

Despite what reputation people like that have (due to the simple fact of how reporting works), most are harmless like me and you and don't actually want to see innocent people suffer and would never act on their desires. So having a safe and harmless outlet might help.