sab @ sab @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

162

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yeah, it's hilarious :( I have no idea how that's legal under GDPR. So that's why I'm part of the small group of WhatsApp-resisting signal users in my country.

saying that if I don't create an account then they will do it for me

I would report the hell out of them, both to Facebook and HR. That's literally the definition of identity theft.

Although the point is kind of moot - because of all the people who know you, that do willingly share their everything (including their phone contacts, photos etc), Facebook already has a You-shaped hole, even if you don't have an account.

So when I got pressured into creating a Facebook account (not as badly as you were though), I was so creeped out by the amount of data they already had on me, I immediately deleted my account. It felt like being invited into someone's home for the first time and seeing a stalker shrine dedicated to yourself.

"it's okay, I do this with everyone."

No, it really is not.

...so far.

For those that don't mind self-hosting, which can be as easy as just running syncthing or resilio sync on your NAS, I can really recommend keepass.

the ability to scream so loud that other voices can't reach the audience.

Could you elaborate on that? It's hard to see which voices are drowned out, on account of them, well, bring drowned out ;)

I personally think it's more the case that people are just locked into their own little bubbles, thanks to algorithms feeding them a mixture of what they want to hear (to feel validated) and of what upsets them (to get that outrage interaction).

If anything, I think that governments and traditional media are having a lot less influence, in favour of outrage-based, exaggerated, skewed or just down misrepresented takes of the facts - perpetuated by upset participants in social media.

So you're not opposed to freedom of speech, but freedom of press?

But what's the alternative? People are allowed to post their opinions, but once they're part of a company (like a news agency), their publications have to be vetted for by... What, exactly?

According to which definition?

Don't get me wrong, I don't like it either. But the only difference between someone knowingly propagating misinformation, and someone doing it because they honestly believe it to be true... is in their head. You can't control for that (not should you want to, imho).

For that matter, repeat the misinformation enough, and the former group disappears until only the second group is left.

I'm a bit torn about this. On one hand I fully agree with you, let them stew in their filth. But on the other hand: I still have to live in a society where people who have been indoctrinated by their filter bubble get to vote.

Then on the first hand again: messing with their freedom of speech because I disagree with it is fucked up. It's complicated.

No censorship / unable to delete content? What happens when somebody decides to post illegal content like CP? I know that's an easy target, but either it has a way to deal with that, or it's going to attract a very scary crowd, at least as a subset.

Thanks for putting an actual summary in there. Much appreciated.

The best moment to act was yesterday. The second best moment is now.

It's not too late.

No, the whole point is that an isp should not be forced to do anything, unless ordered to do so by a court.

As the title mentions, this an endless chase if you approach it like this. Vigilante mobs aren't going to solve this, it's going to take specialist agencies with mandates to request data civilians can't. Crimes are being committed there (not murders, but a good way to get the scare votes, I suppose), and there are laws in place to deal with that.

As mentioned several times in this thread, shifting the responsibility for what is allowed to be said on the Internet from governments to corporate entities is a terrible precedent.

Edit: Nevermind. I see you're also responsible for this wonderful gem:

The position is intellectually dishonest unless you’re actually pro-killing-transgender people.

There's no point in arguing with you.

Hear hear. Obviously this site should be shut down. But it should be done so on basis of fair trial. Not because of mob justice, or corporations that answer only to shareholders.

You're ruining the circlejerk >:(

Retroactively, in 2015?

Since the day twitter introduced their algorithmic timeline, they kept the option around to watch your feed chronologically. So the big "what if" of this articles headline is just "what if I just use twitter the way I could since it's inception".

Instead, rather than an algorithmic filter bubble, the author want a human-imposed filter bubble. So much better.

This entire site looks like a defamation case waiting to happen. Even if it is based in reality (big if), it's obviously collected here to ruin the guys reputation.

Either OP just outed themselves as an accomplice to stealing government data (for which there is no statute of limitations AFAIK), or its just some piece of fiction that has no place here. Either way, not smart.

Not to mention the amount of people who think this is about notepad.

Speaking from my own experience: it's fun to hold boobs, even moreso if they're not your own.