For example, from a US-based perspective, a “positive” is that law enforcement agencies and the thousands of social media monitoring tools they utilize look at Twitter and other big platforms. LEO agencies have had for years the channels to monitor posts and request instantaneously from those companies supplemental information on the user or post that is being investigated. LE will be out of luck if they were attempting to immediately investigate a user on an obscure white supremacist forum hosted in Russia. That website owner and its servers would not be in jurisdiction to respond to that request.

Also, please see my other reply 1 minute before yours regarding private companies being able to ban, suprress, etc. I agree with you that private companies can run their own ship how they please, whether in the best interests of profit or ideology.

Sure, I don’t object to your statement of Twitter not being a free platform, and I did not claim it was. Conversely, other social media have been also known to suppress the right and protect the left. Social media can “lean” so to speak. They are provately operated companies after all. I value free speech nonetheless.

Freedom of speech is good. White supremacists or any other group ideological supporters will always find a way to communicate and share their message, regardless of the century, technology, or censorship. Frankly, doing this openly on X/Twitter versus some obscure unknown forum or encrypted platforn is a positive. Social media as a whole is susceptible to ideological campaigns from groups and other countries, not just X/Twitter.

!chalkboardlectures@lemmy.ml

Time is money, and this format of teaching/learning is my favorite. Please post here, I’m all alone.

That is true, but there is a good reason. For example, you may call 911 in North America without any cell plan, or without a SIM. As you long as you are within physical range of any cell tower (whether your phone shows bars or not) the 911 call will go through. This is required by law. So, like your quoted text indicates, 911 calls would just need to be routed through your phone’s native dialer instead of, let’s say, Cheogram’s dialer (jmp.chat’s phone/message app).

Thanks for enlightening me. That is certainly concerning. I am not knowledgable enough to say if eSIM would be outside the scope of that attack. There are some differences in how the tech is implemented, but heck my eSIM still connects to the cell tower at the end of the day (and to multiple carriers, at that, unlike physical SIM). If there is a surface area, there is a chance for attack vectors.

What security risks are you considering for physical SIM?

You can keep your cell number with jmp.chat. Call over wifi or data. They offer eSIM. View text messages on any device/program with XMPP support. 2FA works 100% like normal unlike VoIP. All data, calls, texts are routed through their VPN first, then the cell network. Any other inhouse XMPP chat not going to networks stay within XMPP. I have no affiliation with jmp.chat, I am satisfied with the service.

Personal: 0% unless it is a call with a planned time.

Work: 0% unless it is an in-house number of my organization. Communication can occur via email, please and thank you.