chopin24

9 ms·

1.
by chopin24 6y ago
Thanks for the recommendation on The Transparent Society. I haven't read it, but certainly will. The idea that the surveillance tools are "put in the hands of masses" neglects the part where the "masses" includes co
2.
by chopin24 6y ago
I don't have any expectations for how they will address their transgressions. They don't have a right to my personal data, don't have a right to track me, don't have a right to sell my attention to modify my behavior. P
3.
by chopin24 6y ago
That Google’s management is so unaware of their data collection software that they allowed engineers to drive around spying on people for three years does not inspire trust. Incompetence or malice is besides the point. Google did not take r
4.
by chopin24 6y ago
Not saying you are one such person, or that you are doing so intentionally, but this argument is a clever sleight of hand employed by surveillance capitalists and their apologists to deflect attention away from the real issue: that thousand
5.
by chopin24 6y ago
I'm not comfortable assuming the best intentions from a $1.2T company whose business model relies on tracking my behavior. They burned that bridge after the war-driving "Wi-Spy" scandal, which went on from 2007-2010. [0]. It&
6.
by chopin24 6y ago
Let's dispense with this fiction, once and for all, that "targeted" or "customized" advertisements were ever for the users' benefit. They are, and always have been, for the benefit of Google and the advertise
7.
by chopin24 6y ago
I'm happy that HN has accepted a change in the article's title, which appears as "Google says it may have found a privacy-friendly substitute to cookies." This terminology -- "found" -- has been used by Google
8.
by chopin24 6y ago
You should read “ IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation.” It’s not either/or, it’s both/and. This fucking matters. Letting corporations off the hook because
9.
by chopin24 6y ago
How do you run A/B to prove this hypothesis?
10.
by chopin24 6y ago
Don’t worry. I already gave up on the sign-up flow when I entered my preferred username and password, then tapped register in the top right corner, only to be confronted with a prompt to —- again enter a username and password of my choice.
11.
by chopin24 6y ago
You pose this as centralization vs decentralization. This is actually Facebook vs Open Source, and for every feature that isn’t at parity with the existing solution, you lose users. Is now the time to be dogmatic about decentralization?
12.
by chopin24 6y ago
The first launch on iPhone asks me if I want to share my contacts, and then outlines a massive paragraph explaining something about identity servers that I’m expected to choose. This is a friction-filled experience for someone coming from W
13.
by chopin24 6y ago
I tapped this link on my iPhone. There’s nothing that says create account. It says I have to download an app called Element. But you said it was called Matrix. This is the level of technical ability that you need to be targeting.
14.
by chopin24 6y ago
Right. But one of these is secure and the other isn’t. State action against telegram is eminent.
15.
by chopin24 6y ago
For all of you saying we should switch to Matrix, please outline the user sign up flow in your comment. Be detailed. Your audience is your 50 something aunt who calls her iPad her Facebook.
16.
by chopin24 6y ago
Telegram is insecure and also being swamped with right wingers. Doesn’t seem promising.
17.
by chopin24 6y ago
This theory implies a level of coordination and agreement that the US Government is simply not capable of. The group most interested in such backups (intelligence) does not coordinate with the regulatory committees, and even if they did suc
18.
by chopin24 6y ago
(2020)
19.
by chopin24 6y ago
Thanks, this works! It fails when one video isn't found, but gets 60% of the way there. I'll see if I can exclude that one and get it to keep going
20.
by chopin24 6y ago
Any tips on easily making an offline copy of these? I'm afraid by the time I started some of these would go dark.
21.
by chopin24 6y ago
Have we really seen the power return to the people because of social media? That was the theory during, e.g., The Arab Spring. But, it doesn't seem like it's held. It feels like the old guard has taken over social media and used i
22.
by chopin24 6y ago
>The belief that free speech must have limits is necessarily equivalent with the belief that a large part of the people are stupid and they must be protected by the smart people by preventing them to hear anything that might influence th
23.
by chopin24 6y ago
Perhaps there's a middle way, something I've been experimenting with myself personally when it comes to digital devices: A digital Sabbath. Don't call it that of course, since it has religious connotation, but instead just...
24.
by chopin24 6y ago
>worse without it Why do you think so?
25.
by chopin24 6y ago
I'm with you. I care about free speech. I care about the implications of censorship. But I'm also just tired of it all. If (for example) banning Trump from Twitter means we stop having entire articles and public radio pieces devot
26.
by chopin24 6y ago
>It is hard to craft rules that allow everything without leaving a site unusable Does government cheese have to be tasty? The point is to provide the public square, in all its public square glory. If you want something slick and curated,
27.
by chopin24 6y ago
There's already a law that says advertising messages have to be labelled as such ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act_of_2003 ). Shouldn't be too challenging. Is anyone really going to violate the law o
28.
by chopin24 6y ago
I was thinking publicsquare.gov, but this is a good one too.
29.
by chopin24 6y ago
Spam can be blocked, though, right? Edit: To address the commenter below, Congress has addressed spam before, in the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003.
30.
by chopin24 6y ago
Post needs a title change to match the original article. But, the op-ed is spot on. The government is inducing tech companies to do what they can't do legally, and this started with the "elective affinity" between the CIA and

More ›