Did I just voluntarily watch an ad? Worse, did I just kinda enjoy an ad??? You have me spiralling here lmao

AMD’s also apparently unifying their server and consumer gpu departments for RDNA5/UDNA iirc, which I’m really hoping helps with this too

pause???

Alright the time travellers are selling, time to short bitcoin

I do think their point about not using E2EE enabling better moderation is worth considering, because it’s absolutely true that the server being unable to filter malicious content makes moderation harder. Still, imo any decent chat client should support it as an option, because if I’m talking to friends I don’t want any servers having access for any reason. Large guilds for public info, like the KDE matrix for example, shouldn’t be E2E encrypted for this exact reason (iirc it’s not, because matrix allows the choice and KDE has chosen correctly). Lack of encryption doesn’t mean all moderation issues are solved, though, cuz that same unencrypted KDE matrix had a pretty major problem with CSAM being spammed a while back.

So IMO the ability to disable E2EE is valuable for a discord replacement, but the author’s idea that E2EE shouldn’t be implemented… does not follow.

Super minor but there’s also a missing ‘A’ in the “add paper maps” line

This is the problem with the network effect, everybody using marketplace is saying the same thing. I’m not trying to shame you in particular for this or anything but I think it’s important to consider that at some point if we don’t just make the move off anyway, nobody ever will

Technically every part of your skin is between orifices, but good advice even so

Yep, tho the same power applies for a lot of an operating system so I see a basic level of trust for the developer as a prereq for even running the OS. If I didn’t trust the dev enough not to silently turn features into spyware then I’d never run the OS at all, personally (so anything Google makes is a hard pass for me). People should always follow release notes and be reevaluating their trust ofc, but if you’re actively expecting malware to be slipped into your shit I personally just wouldn’t give them the chance

If it’s silently installed / enabled by default, hard agree. (again, didn’t read the article so only familiar with apple’s version and not defending Google’s)

If this is done locally on-device with no reporting back to Google, it could be a really good feature - the way Apple does it isn’t censorship, it just blurs the picture to give you a heads up “hey this is nudity, you wanna see this right now?”. You can click into it to see the original whenever you want, and it’s just a nice layer of protection to make sure you actively wanted to see whatever it was (and specifically right now). I hope google’s implementing it the same way, but I don’t trust them enough to bet on it and I couldn’t be bothered to read the article lol

The author of that essay (@dessalines@lemmy.ml) is one of the main devs of lemmy, so you’re asking in the right place lmao

I get this perspective, but I don’t personally wanna use it cuz “costs advertisers” == “rewards ad companies” and it’s the ad companies I have a problem with more than whatever random company decides to pay for an ad. Punishing companies for intrusive advertising is great, but not if it’s making even more money for Facebook/google/whatever fucked up company is the actual driving cause of the ad industry’s state.

Fuck that platform, if it dies right now the world will be a better place overnight. That being said, I’m against it being banned - imo if we’re petitioning for anything, it should be to get governments off of it and onto better alternatives.

I love the concept, but the ugly reality is that anyone can spin up an instance and pour in an arbitrary number of votes to themselves or anyone else. I think the credibility score would give people a false confidence and honestly do more harm than good unfortunately

I’m a little bit biased here but it might be a good idea to use an instance like lemmy.zip instead, to minimize the amount of defederation going on.

if when

Minor correction: the website has my VPN’s IP 😂 I don’t trust random websites with shit, personally. The payments not being tied to your real identity would also not make the web any more or less private than it currently is - just the alternative would remove privacy. Again tho, I’m not tied to crypto specifically and would be perfectly happy with any payment system that maintained user privacy. I just don’t want to see a feature roll out that gets people jailed for visiting lgtbq+ sites or some shit when their payment providers are controlled by fascist governments

Your other points are absolutely valid, but privacy-wise I’d much rather have my data associated with an anonymous wallet ID than any payment linked to my real identity

Would you want your full identity being associated with every page you donate to, especially if the donations happen based on you just visiting? Idc if it’s crypto or another alternative personally, but it absolutely has to be properly anonymous or at least have the ability to be. Especially at the time BAT launched, crypto was the only way I personally knew to achieve that - if Mozilla wants to get on board and switch away from crypto to something equally anonymous, I’d be thrilled, but imo this is a good use case for crypto anyway so it doesn’t bother me.