Leraje @ leraje @lemmy.blahaj.zone

This account is now backup only. I have moved to https://piefed.blahaj.zone

---

Read more

Posts

45

Comments

834

Joined

2 yr. ago

Quickest answer I can give you is to search this Community for 'brave browser', where you'll find links confirming that:

1. It's owned by a scumbag
2. It's selling copyrighted data that isn't its to sell
3. It's crypto offering is a bad joke
4. It has been caught installing software without user knowledge or permission
5. It got caught inserting affiliate links

Basically, trust that Brave Browser can be a good product and trust that the company are responsible is pretty much dead. Every time they try and sneak another thing past their users and (inevitably) get caught, they of course apologise and promise never to do it again. Then they do it again.

I use the servers that are in the offices/city of the VPN company I use. If you're using servers that aren't under the direct control of the VPN company, you're trusting not only the VPN company but some unknown team who are hired by another company to manage the servers they're renting to your VPN company.

...on a privacy related Community regarding a privacy related story, talking about privacy related legislation.

You're insinuating two entirely disparate things are the same. Privacy related legislation and our historical propensity for genocide.

Are you genuinely asking me if the ramping up of invasive legislation in the UK is worse than genocide?

They're writing about the Police using tracking data and that's what the title of the article is. You keep saying they're a shit publication based on absolutely nothing aside from your opinion.

You also stated this is a shit article, when I asked you to say why, you chose not to, instead saying they're a shit publication. So I'll ask you again. If you believe this is a shit article, tell me what they're wrong about.

You're totally downplaying the tortoisemedia quote by not mentioning it's from the co-chair of the British Society of Abortion Care Providers, a totally legitimate and mainstream body.

If you think this is a shit article, tell me what you think it gets wrong. Or are you basing your opinion on the fact you weren't previously aware of tortoisemedia?

Is it really a choice though if you want to be private but you can't afford 13 euros a month?

It's not the fact they're charging that's the issue, it's the fact they're charging such a massive amount of money.

True, but it's definitely getting both worse and more blatant.

It's dystopian shit like this that is beginning to make me despair of what my country will be in 10 years time.

The passing of the online safety bill, this sort of shit, the recent legislation making it more and more difficult to protest anything, the massive expansion of facial recognition cameras everywhere. We're on the edge of a bad period I think.

I'm not 100% sure but I don't think creep stores anything on its github incarnation so it'll always look like it's your first visit.

CreepJS is much better (and scarier) at fingerprinting you than EFF. I've not managed to completely fool it yet but I've got my score down to 0% trust, meaning the fingerprint it generates is pretty useless. I suspect the only way to totally fool it (by which I mean spoof my devices) would be to turn JS off completely.

So, that blog post is by Tutanota who, as we're all aware, also offer a paid-for product. But there's a lot of difference between a paid-for product that will only respect your privacy if you pay for it (and even that is questionable) and a paid-for product that just does respect your privacy, even on their free tier.

And, as others have said, Meta have made little to no mention of several things about this paid-for model:

1. What about all the tracking that Meta do on non-Meta sites?
2. On Meta sites, there's very little mention of them not tracking you anymore - they're just saying (as far as I can see) that they're not going to serve you personalised ads anymore.
3. The pricing Meta are going to charge is clearly meant to deter people from taking the ad-free model up.

There was a thread on here that I now can't find that worked out that, based on monies from advertising/number of users this price structure is indeed an insane price.

I can't find any clarification on the details of this either. Is it per service? So 10/13 euros pm for FB and another 10/13 for Insta?

And if you access either via desktop and mobile do you have to pay for both?

That's why I said 'bare minimum' - as I said elsewhere, I'm not American so the whole owning guns thing is fucking weird to me anyway, I think the US would be much better off totally banning all guns but as that's very unlikely to happen, banning all guns created with the express intent of shooting humans seems logical.

As I understand it, the primary purpose of some guns is not for killing humans - hunting rifles etc - but for those that are, the bare minimum of a total ban seems proportionate.

I don't know enough about how the medical system works in the US to say who's fault it was he wasn't treated appropriately and neither do I know what his exact mental state was upon release. All I'm saying is that two weeks on a ward is barely enough time to assess someone who's in the grip of acute psychosis, let alone begin treating them.

I don't know what your experience is with psychosis (I have schizophrenia) but it very often is not something that is ever going to be 'cured' in that you go to a ward, they give you a handful of meds and two weeks later boom you're safe (and by safe I mean no danger to yourself, the vast majority of people with psychosis are not violent). It can take years to get to a stage where you feel stable.

This guy should not have been discharged after two weeks. And that is not particular to him - I can't think of any situation where any person with acute psychosis should be discharged from a ward after only 2 weeks. It's simply not enough time to treat someone.

Is it the discharging clinician's fault? Or the fault of the mental health system (or lack thereof) in the US? Or inadequacies in both? I don't know, I don't know how the system works over there. But that guy should not have been discharged.

The help he received is the limit of what any healthcare system, anywhere in the world could have given him.

If by 'limit' you mean 'bare minimum' then I agree. Because it definitely is not the amount of help he would've received in some other countries. Two weeks would barely be enough time for an assessment to take place in some countries, let alone treatment.

As for your other points, I agree. I don't see why American's think owning a gun is in any way a good or positive or useful thing (unless you're a farmer or similar). But, if a countries leading cause of child death is guns and that country still does nothing about guns I really don't know what it would take to make change happen.

Switch to BitWarden, then use this tutorial to get your passwords from Chrome into BitWarden.

It has a web, desktop and mobile app and also a Firefox extension, which are all here.

It's characteristic of all forms of totalitarian leadership. The communism/UK comparison is wrong because we don't have a ruling party that shares any of the main traits of communism.

It's possible for both things to be valid. I'm not American so the whole owning guns thing is weird to me anyway but surely the bare minimum is banning weapons that are expressly made for killing humans, like hand guns and assault weapons.

But alongside that, it's a fact that this guy did not get the help he needed, certainly not all the help anyone could give him. Two weeks on a ward is nowhere near enough time to treat someone in acute psychosis.