There's an older law called Marco Civil da Internet (roughly "internet civil framework"), from 2014. The Article 19 of that law boils down to "if a third party posts content that violates the law in an internet service, the service provider isn't legally responsible, unless there's a specific judicial order telling it to remove it."
So. The new law gets rid of that article, claiming it's unconstitutional. In effect, this means service providers (mostly social media) need to proactively remove illegal content, even without judicial order.
I kind of like the direction this is going, but it raises three concerns:
False positives becoming more common.
The burden will be considerably bigger for smaller platforms than bigger ones.
It gives the STF yet another tool for vendetta. The judiciary is already a bit too strong in comparison with the other two powers, and this decision only feeds the beast further.
On a lighter side, regardless of #2, I predict a lower impact in the Fediverse than in centralised social media.
We need a cosmological law dictating harmful to humans = boring-looking. I mean, it isn't just plutonium, look at uranium yellowcake! It's lemon flavouring!
When cooking, people in general like to use round numbers, like "200°C", since a difference of 5°C in oven temperature is not a big deal.
And yet they went with some oddly specific 205°C. That only makes sense if they're used to Fahrenheit, eyeballed a round value (like 400°F), converted it into Celsius (204.4°C), and then rounded it up to discard the decimal.
I'm also going to say they're completely clueless when it comes to cooking - 200°C is the oven temperature. The chicken itself reaches a far lower temperature, in the 70~80°C range. By the time the chicken reached 200°C, it's already dry and close to catching fire. (The self-ignition temperature for biological stuff is typically between 200°C and 250°C.)
I tried. Dunno if I should make a sword-shaped hole in the fault or add a "no swords allowed!" sign. (If I got this right you're mocking oddly combative users, right? There's always rules to be nice... and they get ignored.)
The stick in question is off-site; it sees the PC once per month, then it gets back to the drawer in another room. And regardless of its fate, if I had a flood or fire affecting my PC, in the second store of a brick house, odds are that I'd have far more pressing matters than the data.
It is enough for my use case, considering the likelihood of my SSD and the USB stick going kaboom in the span of a single month is next to zero; if only one of them does it, I can use the other to recover the data to a third medium.
I mean just about anyone of sufficient size is susceptible to this.
Sure - the bigger the business, the more expendable each user/customer is. And Microsoft is really huge.
Just keep multiple backups.
Two are enough for most people (the 3-2-1 rule); sometimes one. The catch is that at least one of those backups must be off-line, and in a different medium than the original. While you can use the cloud to increase the reliability of the whole system, you should never rely exclusively on it.
Reminder "the cloud" is someone else's computer. If you're going to use it at least make sure the "someone else" isn't a clown hat like Microsoft.
(This article also prompted me to update the backup of my personal files. I'm not following the 3-2-1 rule; a USB stick is enough. I do like to keep it updated though.)
![Lvxferre [he/him]](https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/333d03a0-bcae-434b-a8d1-7dfd18962d20.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
For context:
There's an older law called Marco Civil da Internet (roughly "internet civil framework"), from 2014. The Article 19 of that law boils down to "if a third party posts content that violates the law in an internet service, the service provider isn't legally responsible, unless there's a specific judicial order telling it to remove it."
So. The new law gets rid of that article, claiming it's unconstitutional. In effect, this means service providers (mostly social media) need to proactively remove illegal content, even without judicial order.
I kind of like the direction this is going, but it raises three concerns:
On a lighter side, regardless of #2, I predict a lower impact in the Fediverse than in centralised social media.