Skip Navigation

Posts
2
Comments
525
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Yes, but you don't need a study to know that there will be some CSAM on the Fediverse. This is about whether using the Fediverse could make things worse, and just stating absolute numbers won't answer that question. What it does do is make it sound like the Fediverse is a magnet for CSAM, when in reality the opposite could be true.

    Or to put it differently: If these numbers turn out to be lower than what you get on similar platforms, then this could actually be a good sign, even though they still aren't zero.

  • The study doesn't compare their findings to any other platform, so we can't really tell if those numbers are good or bad. They just state the absolute numbers, without really going into to much detail about their searching process. So no, you can't draw the conclusion that the Fediverse has a CSAM problem, at least not from this study.

    Of course that makes you wonder why they bothered to publish such a lackluster and alarmistic study.

  • Why do they just mention absolute numbers, instead of comparing them to similar platforms? All they said was that there is CSAM on the Fediverse, but that's also true for centralized services and the internet as a whole. The important question is whether there is more or less CSAM on the Fediverse, no?

    This makes it look very unscientific to me. The Fediverse might have a CSAM problem, but you wouldn't know it from this study.

  • A system for websites to request a proof of the "integrity" of a user's browser and underlying OS/hardware, and "attesters" to check this "integrity" and provide the proof. If that sounds vague, that's because it is. What "integrity" means is for the "attester" to decide.

    Google would of course be one of the major "attesters", and could just deny the proof if you installed an ad blocker or VPN for example. In this case you would likely not be able to access the website anymore, because your device is deemed as "untrustworthy".

    So it's a way for big companies to decide who can still use big parts of the internet and who can't, based on whether it would make them money.

  • Kinda, but it still connects to Google for updates for example, and syncs your browsing data to Google if you login. So it's really only halfway there.

  • Idk, people are weird sometimes. I use FF myself, but I think Brave is a good alternative. Definitely better than using Chrome imo.

  • The way they phrase the reasoning in their proposal is just disgusting! Like "Users want advertisers to be happy, and advertisers need ...", as if it's all about what users want.

  • If FF isn't for you then maybe give Brave a try. It's basically a de-googled Chrome.

  • Afaik the J series is known to have bad performance when it comes to processing media, like creating thumbnails or transcoding videos. That's why they added the Play series at some point, as an affordable option with ok media support.