This is a cool way to protect a belief, narrowing the scope so that the refuting data do not apply anymore. Perhaps I can write a fucking essay about it, but do you have data to support this narrowing move? There is like a ton of data that the West has been invasively spying of possible threats to the status quo (from Cointelpro to undercover UK cops like recently), not just people “acting on it”. Furthermore, actions can fall under protected free speech as well, like putting up a poster, demonstrating, and protesting. So your proposal is inherently undemocratic if you roll back freedom to only protect oral expression, quite similar to a “Don’t ask don’t tell” attitude towards gay people. What you just said is simply counter-factual. Blanket surveillance is a staple of Western societies in the 21st century, and it blows my mind that there are still people oblivious to what is more or less spelled out clearly in the Patriot Act and all laws modeled after it across the globe.

I’m going to bring it up.

Isn’t this the same asshole who posted the “Woke racist” meme as a response to Gemini generating images of Black SS officers? Of course we now know he was merely triggered by the suggestion because of his commitment to white supremacy and alignment with the SS ideals, which he could not stand to see, pun not intended, denigrated.

The Gemini ordeal was itself a result of a system prompt; a half-ass attempt to correct for white bias deeply learned by the algorithm, just a few short years after Google ousted their AI ethics researcher for bringing this type of stuff up.

Few were the outlets that did not lend credence to the “outrage” about “diversity bias” bullshit and actually covered that deep learning algorithms are indeed sexist and racist.

Now this nazi piece of shit goes ahead and does the exact same thing; he tweaks a system prompt causing the bot to bring up the self-serving and racially charged topic of apartheid racists being purportedly persecuted. He does the vary same thing he said was “uncivilizational”, the same concept he brought up just before he performed the two back-to-back Sieg Heil salutes during Trump’s inauguration.

He was clearly not concerned about historical accuracy, not the superficial attempt to brown-wash the horrible past of racism which translates to modern algorithms’ bias. His concern was clearly the representation of people of color, and the very ideal of diversity, so he effectively went on and implemented his supremacist seething into a brutal, misanthropic policy with his interference in the election and involvement in the criminal, fascist operation also known as DOGE.

Is there anyone at this point that is still sitting on the fence about Musk’s intellectual dishonesty and deeply held supremacist convictions? Quickest way to discover nazis nowadays really: (thinks that Musk is a misunderstood genius and the nazi shit is all fake).

There is a conceptual distinction: Encryption in transit vs. encryption at rest. You may send the packets encrypted to the server, but if they are not encrypted on the server’s file system, anyone can read them.

The real question is, why do you think governments make such a big fuss about citizens having access to military grade encryption?

There have been audits of e2ee implementations, and the algorithms used also have some objective properties. I don’t think that I have ever heard in cryptography discussions that backdoors are so widespread that the discussion is moot. I have only heard, time and time again, the opposite.

Even Apple, in this very occasion, opted to ditch the service rather than backdoor it, and in fact takes the UK to court over this. I think that the opinion that this is all for show is a tad wild, and not very well supported in this occasion.

Like every cryptology book starts with the adage “There is cryptography that prevents your little sister from reading your mail, and cryptography that prevents the government from reading your mail, and we will talk about the latter.”

https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2025/02/23/three-questions-about-apple-encryption-and-the-u-k/

On the other hand, not all implementations are created equal. Telegram was recently under fire, and there is a lot of variance in e2ee implementations in XMPP clients, IIRC.

The basic way to do this is you respond to these three questions: What am I trying to protect? From whom? What are they able to do to get there?

Perhaps this explains why all these spook impostors are so vehemently against advanced privacy and anonymity. They are signaling they are the good ones!

This is some Gestapo/Stasi shit.

Like, all queer persons must go beyond Signal/Tor level.

This extends to the physical world: Plan ahead for escape routes and survival networks.

I will come back with this angle but, REMEMBER those mfers who always said “the NSA does not target you, so asking about anything more than Signal is paranoid/futile if ever the NSA targets you”?

REMEMBER that we said that some people have advanced threat models by default? Eg feminist activists, activists in third countries, queer people?

WHO is paranoid now, that being queer, pro-Palestine, and/or climate activists can have you on the watchlist?

This development only proves my previous points that the hordes of sock-puppets spamming the Privacy forum are fucking spooks. Pooping the conversation about advanced privacy and anonymity should qualify for permabans, IMHO.

They don’t even cite the datapoints, my friend. It is a trademark infringement cease-and-desist…

either Signal fans have to donate more or Signal has to start finding other monetization which if we look at other companies means selling private data.

Lo and behold, after RiseUp now Signal is accused of selling data. Well, it is well known (and audited) that Signal keeps so little metadata it is not even useful to the authorities that have subpoeana-ed it.

This is an extra-ordinary claim you have to back with extra-ordinary evidence, in order to save face.

Clean cut kids do not find Lemmy very palatable.

The alternatives were suggested briefly in the segment, not the site. Oliver pointed to the site those people who can’t ditch Meta right now.

it’s going to hurt Meta’s bottom line eventually

Just hurting Meta’s bottom is good enough for me

He only now was able to catch up with all the news with Meta moderation from a month ago. He is only a couple weeks back on air.

Remember “Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption”? You can’t get stuff like this in stores!

sentence I never thought I’d write

🤣 🤣

Remember when Gemini AI spewed out images of Black Nazis and white supremacists were triggered, huh? IT WAS ON TO SOMETHING, WASN’T IT? /s

I think is some in-joke having to do with Facebook moderation. Or his typical goofassery with domain names. Can’t help you there.

User name checks out

I will assume you are not talking about me here as you have no idea of my point of view on the matter. I believe you are talking generically…

That’s right

Ieven if you are talking generically, i don’t think your assumption here makes sense. many people feel free to discriminate between people on the basis of their biological sex.

I am talking about the notion that all men are potentially sexual predators. I am not discussing the truthfulness of the idea, or whether women are justified to be afraid of men in general (to an extend they are). But regarding this narrower notion, there is plenty of evidence online that men find the fear outrageous (Not all men etc). If they think trans women are (*) simply men (I disagree) then they are simply not consistent. This naturally leads to the next step, that their interpretation of transness in AMAB people is registered as a sexual perversion (*). It isn’t. It is a personal identity thing, like being a (cis) woman also isn’t inherently a sexual thing. To think the former is transphobia, to think the latter is misogyny. I am not saying, nor I care, about you subscribing to either, personally. We are both discussing the sociological popularity of these notions.

I don’t know where you live, but this is not true in the UK

I am a nomad, but I was talking about the US, where this grim picture is true in some states, especially with black trans women whose murders the police is particularly inadequate to solve.

while I agree with the thrust of what you are saying you have a writing style that puts words and assumptions in my mouth

I was talking generically. That having been said, I wasn’t sure about your personal take, since the lack of tone in this written medium can be very misleading.

in a manner that comes across an unnecessarily combative. you also use exaggeration to make your point which is itself problematic…

I really tried to put arguments forth, and conscientiously not target you, while not giving you a free pass. I don’t think I exaggerate, I just present in distilled form the things that people might mean but not necessarily say out loud.

As for being combative, I just try to be thorough and concise. When I said this is textbook transphobia I weren’t attacking you. This is factual. If someone looks up a textbook on transphobia they will find the points I have asterisk-ed above. It would perhaps come down as less combative if I said “this is the dictionary definition of transphobia”? I don’t know. Transphobia is an ugly thing and much like racism, there is no pleasant way to say it, but this is what the word means.

The wording is such that lends legitimacy to these viewpoints. The breakdown is right there for anyone who want to build upon this discussion, but it would be naive to give the benefit of the doubt to just anyone, when ignorance and misinformation is ubiquitous, nay, institutionalized.

I consider your theorizing of “pre-transition history” being within the “rights of society” to “keep in touch with reality” as misleading and problematic.

In fact, these are the axioms of trans erasure I discuss in my other response. In the core of this reasoning is the idea that “men are inherently dangerous to women” therefore “women must know at all times the biological sex of any person they interact with”.

So you can’t go past the “transition” history for reasons that under all other circumstances you would decry as “misandry”, but only apply this to trans women (victims themselves of cis violence in bathrooms and all other settings). Why? Because you register trans women in the semantics of sexual perversion. Then, the “right” to know anyone’s medical history does not exist, on the contrary people have the right to privacy to medical interventions of any type.

Due to stigma and discrimination trans people are furthermore entitled to hands down secrecy, given that a random bigot can just shoot them down for being trans with zero consequences. But this is also hypothetical now. The amount of cis-passing is different for every trans people.

Some may pass for cis, most don’t. Besides the existential crisis some people experience when they can’t tell a person is trans, in practice stealth trans people are relatively rare, and there is not an iota of evidence that there is any societal harm from stealth cis-passing trans people. So there is no reason behind your purported “societal right to know”, apart from cisgenderist entitlement.

Enforcing such right is not only infeasible, but it sufficiently and necessarily leads to banning public trans life, with no other explanation other than cis people’s uneasiness. The civil rights movement has established that majoritarian uneasiness with minorities sharing their bathrooms is not enough to justify perpetuation of discriminatory segregation practices.

This is textbook transphobia.