ilmagico @ ilmagico @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

437

Joined

2 yr. ago

But a wrench doesn't give plausible deniability ...

I guess you're speaking for the USA, or whatever country you live in, but @ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world seemed to speak about a different (unspecified) country. We're left to guess which country...

(also, Godwin's law still applies lol)

Which country exactly?

Try standing 10 ft / 3m away, in a crowd, and not actually expecting anybody to have them. Would you notice?

Cause Zucko needs even more ways to spy on us.

Cameras as usually passive (i.e. they don't emit light or any radiation, they just absorb the one that happens to land on their sensor), so no, not really.

Tha would be true only for those infrared cameras that have active IR LEDs to see at night, or lidars, radars, structured light 3d cameras, time-of-flight distance sensors, etc or anything that actually emits something. Regular cameras don't.

Right, definitely not the same everywhere in the world. Where exactly is "here" that you're referring to?

People have been trying to make VR go fully mainstream since, probably, the 90s or even earlier. It always flopped after some initial excitement. Who's next to try their luck?

Here are my words above:

If he’s convicted, or if I judge orders it before he’s convicted, then the app goes down

Once convicted the app should go down period. If deemed very dangerous, a judge could order it down even before while awaiting the verdict. Hopefully that clarifies it.

reading comprehension...

Judges aren't perfect, and our justice system isn't perfecr, but it's the best we got... people do get away with murder sometimes, but that's a whole different story that I don't think belongs here

Got it.

We're adults (I hope), let's behave like such and not put words in each other's mouth. I didn't say any of those words and you know it.

They aren't legally required to get rid of an app of a convicted rapist and human trafficker.

I'm arguing that they should be legally required to take it down in that case if ordered by a judge, and also, that they should be legally required to let users install whatever app they want on their device, either side loading, 3rd party stores, or whatever.

Currently these aren't true, but one can dream

If he's convicted, or if I judge orders it before he's convicted, then the app goes down. It shouldn't be up to Apple because of the monopoly / walled garden they created.

If they just allowed 3rd party apps and/or sideloading apps, none of this would be a concern and I'd be 100% ok with Apple taking it off their store.

The solution is to have a court of law convict him. Where the hell did you get those things you wrote? I never said them for sure.

Thanks for the pointers!

I tried learning it some time ago (months, not years) and I never cussed so much in my life... maybe I'll just get the hang of it eventually, but let's just say, first impression on the UI is not good.

And that's why I pick Android :) I even used to use LineageOS as my daily driver, but then it became unsustainable, practically speaking. So yes, you or me can, but your average Joe likely won't have the expertise to do so.

Fully agree, and that's exactly what I'm arguing for here.

I believe in certain, limited restriction on freedom of speech, namely, using that freedom to curtail other people's freedom. That includes inciting violence or causing harm to others in any way, or yes, silencing them on one of the largest mobile platforms on the planet.

[...] alleging that Andrew Tate [...]

Did you read the article? Do you know what "alleged" means? There is a trial, let's wait till the verdict is out

Edit: to be clear, I hope he gets convicted, but let justice do its course.

Edit2: If the app was deemed dangerous, the judge in the trial should rule to ban the app waiting for the verdict, not Apple.