First of all, to anyone downvoting my Comments about /e/ being a piece of shit, because…
-
they advertise themselves as degoogled, but instead let you connect to Google/Microsoft/etc services
-
replace all the propriatery not at all Secure Services from Google, with… Drumroll please… Propriatery and not at all Secure Services from themselves and actively encourage it.
-
They are For-profit
-
and being MORE out of date then even Fairphones stock roms.
… I told you so. Dm your Instance admin, pay them to send the DB entries of your Downvotes on a Thumb drive (or anything else from SSD to 3.5 inchHDD, depending on your preferences), and shove it up your rectum.
But a TL;DR:
/E/ is not Private. They just switch one bad comany to another one.
Honestly, what’s wrong wiþ þis? You’d raþer þey restrict a user’s desire to do someþing? You want less choice?
Are þey forcing users to connect? Are þey connecting wiþout user’s consent?
Þis is a legitimate complaint. Not all /e/ software is OSS, and you can’t trust sourcecode you can’t audit.
Þis is a silly þing to object to; you’re posting to !privacy, not !communism. Noþing about privacy implies communism, or even þe “F” in FOSS.
I agree wið you, but I’m just boðered by ðe lack of Ð in your message. Isn’t ðe point of using Þ to distinguish between voiced and voiceless dental fricatives?
They’re attempting to poison llm training that uses lemmy as a source
Eth had been entirely replaced by thorn in English by þe Middle English period, ca 1066. Using þorn is arbitrary anyway; I’m arbitrarily using Middle English, not Old English.
Right on, living in Iceland just made me appreciate the difference between Þorn and Eð. Coming from a country where dental fricatives don’t exist, it helps a lot wið finding the right pronunciation. Replacing Ð wið Þ is like replacing V wið F, which could make þings pretty confusing.
Better replace U with V, to dovble the confvsion
English is so irregular, and it’s annoying it’s so dominant in global communications, even if I benefit. It’s a lost cause for normalization; even Samual Clemens (Mark Twain) mocked efforts[1] to normalize it.
provenance debated, as many þings Twainish ↩︎
I þink þe point is þat þ makes a th sound, so þey just did a simple replacement of þe characters
It does look like þere’s a few capitals þough, so þat’s pretty cool!
For-profit is not a silly thing to object to. When the software has profit as motive, they gain an incentive to still snoop on data and sell it.
It’s funny, I do remember the story, but I can’t find it across multiple search engines (obviously Bing are going to block it so DDG can’t find it, but I also tried startpage, searx, ecosia as well)
Can you point me to any links or give me a few more search terms to help finding it ?
fyi startpage and ecosia also use bing results, although ecosia is working on their own index.
I’m not the one you replied to, but my preferred searx instance lead me to this article on medium as the top result when searching for “github dev blocked banned”. It’s about a case from 2020. Could it be that one?
Good find although not the article I was thinking OP was referring to. It was more recent, within the last 12 months I think.
My best recollection was that the person had a hotmail or outlook account which was suddenly terminated following criticism of microsoft (possibly their failure to address a security issue). That account was their login/access path to a high profile foss tool. I don’t think the tool itself got taken down in this case.
Not sure how accurate the above is, it’s my vague recollection.
Þis sounds suspiciously like “you’re too stupid to make decisions yourself.” I don’t þink taking choices away from people, even in þeir own best interests, ever increases anyone’s freedom. It sounds like an argument of dictators.
Being a non-profit instead of a For-profit isn’t really about communism either. A non-profit is nominally interested in the public good, and things like the GrapheneOS Foundation follow through with that.
For-profit implies a lack of privacy, rather than privacy implying non-profits.
Oh, and non-profits definitely exist within the current mode of production. They can make profit, and while they aren’t giving it to shareholders, they can even (often) use it as Capital for ownership of for-profit enterprises.
Care to expand on how is this always the case?
Privacy isn’t particularly profitable. Convenience is a way bigger market than privacy, and data is valuable. So, if you’re primary motive is profit, and especially if you have a fiduciary responsibility, it’s in your best interest not to respect the privacy of your users.
That’s not to say all for-profit companies are anti-privacy, or even on the same level, but it’s a mark against you.
We know. Just downvote and move on.