2·
1 day agoAgain, nothing to do with Microsoft’s cloud platform.
- 10 Posts
- 231 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
Cake day: December 20th, 2021
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Oh I see. That’s just measuring tracking scripts on websites. It’s not particularly relevant to what is discussed in the article (data sovereignty of cloud providers).
I could also edit the URL manually, it’s just an obnoxious way to respond to a question.
You’re going to link me to youtube shorts?
Please, no.
Certainly the Blacklight test show that Microsoft EU respect way more the privacy (forced by law) than Microsoft US.
What test?
If you go to your Settings page, there’s a Blocks tab which has a text-entry field where you can type in a community name to block it.
If only booting Linux distros, consider GLIM instead: https://github.com/thias/glim
I frequently access Lemmy through quite old hardware, and I’d be a bit worried that these PoW scripts would make the site unusably slow for me.
I will describe how it works and the ethics of such a tool.
Where in this post do you describe the ethics of such a tool?
non-technical users believe that their votes are private, which is far from the truth. This attitude could potentially lead to harassment of Lemmings (yes, that’s what we Lemmy users call ourselves) for upvoting a particular post. Lemvotes makes it clear that votes are not private, which could help bring a more accurate picture of the way votes work on Lemmy to its users.
This is what needs discussion. It is this tool which will lead to harassment due to the way someone votes. And the threat or spectre of harassment will lead to the Chilling Effect, ie. self-censorship (of voting) to avoid harassment.
The chilling effect this causes will make communities even more like echo-chambers, as dissent will be pre-emptively squashed.
Without a tool like this existing, people have to go out of their way to find out this information (setting up their own instance, or finding someone who already does this surreptitiously). By making such a tool available to the lemmy community at large, you make it extremely easy for anyone to do this, and so the chance of harassment occurring is much higher.
You might think you’re being clever, or on some kind of crusade to educate the uneducated. But actually your actions are making this (community-built) platform worse. Compare your actions to releasing a 0-day exploit for a security vulnerability instead of responsibly disclosing. It doesn’t help, it just causes chaos until the people who do the actual work can figure out a solution.
Think about how your tool existing now changes the dynamic of Lemmy as a whole. Is it better, or worse? How would you actually solve this problem in Lemmy, instead of exploiting it?
Same for me, it was Red Hat Linux 6.1 (Cartman). I got it from a CD on the front of a PC magazine.
Mozilla needs a means of making money if anyone hopes Firefox or Librewolf to exist in the long run.
Mozilla Corp needs a means of making money if they want to continue paying their directors millions of dollars a year. The software projects, not so much.
It has been shown repeatedly that “differential privacy” can be exploited to de-anonymize the users whose data has been aggregated.
If you read Mozilla’s description of their Private Audiences system you immediately ask, “what happens if an advertiser has an audience comprising a list of ‘known opposition party supporters’ and generates a new ‘audience’ based on that profile? Do they then get an expanded list of opposition party supporters to target?” Yes of course they do, because that’s entirely the purpose of this system.
Waving their hands and saying it uses ephemeral machine learning models and differential privacy does not solve the inherent societal problems with allowing targeted advertising.
Anything that supports the surveillance capitalist economy is just fuelling the continued exploitation of our attention and private data. Get to fuck, Mozilla CORP.
Sorry, I didn’t think this would need further elaboration as to why it is relevant to your initial question.
Why would anyone trust this company to provide them with hardware that they will use for sensitive tasks that handle personal data?
Just because you are reinstalling the OS does not mean that you can implicitly trust the hardware. There are many forms that a manufacturer backdoor can take, and WPBT has shown that Windows is not clean after a reinstall. Similarly, Linux is vulnerable to binary injection by the UEFI firmware.
You don’t have to agree with my opinion, and I wouldn’t shame you for buying a Lenovo device, but you cannot dispute the relevance of my comment. I put it there for the benefit of people who don’t know about Lenovo’s prior scandals and who, like me, would take that as a signal to reject their products.