“I’m afraid that’s not a choice…”

“Can’t share item,” was the header. “You cannot share this item because it has been flagged as inappropriate,” read the body text.

FAFO.

We’ve been fanfaring for a decade and a fucking half for people not to see “the cloud” as a miracle solution, and to use it carefully. We’ve been warning that it is a blatant invitation to vendor lock in, that it is singlehandedly creating oligopolies, and that exactly this would happen.

Did people listen? No. Did they aggressively confront (or passive-aggressively ostracise) us? You bet your bottom dollar they did.

And now? Now they come around with surprised_pika.gif faces and whine to whoever listens that they are victims, and that they couldn’t “possibly have seen this coming”.

No. They are enablers of abusers, they themselves abused anyone with even a modicum of common sense, and they brought this upon themselves a thousand times over.

FAFO. And at this point, reading such story fills me with the most powerful schadenfreude I have ever experienced.

Thanks.

It is one of the most private implementations of AI that I’ve seen though.

Based on what information/criteria?

This is the way. And I might add, Unix desktop. Let’s not start bikeshedding between FOSS Unix distributions out of dogmatic reasons (I’m sure you didn’t mean to specifically single out “Linux” here, but I wish we would stop opposing “Linux” and other Unixes like BSD, Illumos, etc).

The point is, voting with your data for software that is defending your interests, and respecting your rights.

Edit: Dang, I didn’t expect to get so much slack for “Unix as opposed to Unix-Like”. I absolutely meant “Unix-Like”, but my point is that it shouldn’t matter. Most software is trying to be compatible, these days, and Linux isn’t (in spite of all that marketing material) an OS. It is a kernel. So semantics for semantics, can it even be compared to something it is not? I merely tried to be inclusive.

Damn, now I want part 2!! 😶

(Thanks for posting!! 🙏)

I would not call that a “privacy proxy”, it is very disingenuous. It is a normal proxy, which replaces the technical metadata from your connection, so that automated tracking is harder. But it will not replace or remove any of your input. And you can easily be tracked that way too.

Yeah, I find the puzzle sliding JavaScript captchas the best as a user. Cognitively better than “training neural networks to recognise protestors”, and still fast enough that it doesn’t feel like a forced ad. Reliability might however vary a lot between implementations.

Plus, that way, you have a trail of invites. If something goes wrong, you can prune entire branches and mitigate most abuse.

How about blackholing google to limit the damage instead? And you could limit it further by not using services that you know feed data to google.

I feel cucked having google only get most of my traffic. I am an alpha male, I want them to get all of my traffic.

https://simplex.chat/blog/20240314-simplex-chat-v5-6-quantum-resistance-signal-double-ratchet-algorithm.html

¹ Repudiation in SimpleX Chat will include client-server protocol from v5.7 or v5.8. Currently it is implemented but not enabled yet, as its support requires releasing the relay protocol that breaks backward compatibility.

² Post-quantum cryptography is available in beta version, as opt-in only for direct conversations. See below how it will be rolled-out further.

Some columns are marked with a yellow checkmark:

• when messages are padded, but not to a fixed size.
• when repudiation does not include client-server connection. In case of Cwtch it appears that the presence of cryptographic signatures compromises repudiation (deniability), but it needs to be clarified.
• when 2-factor key exchange is optional (via security code verification).
• when post-quantum cryptography is only added to the initial key agreement and does not protect break-in recovery.

But hopefully I can delay and minimise it a bit, open a better channel of communication with a few friends and relatives and perhaps raise some awareness in the process.

Absolutely.

This isn’t about you. Your data is key in making other, relevant people stand out. Why relevant? Because they resist. Because they aren’t depressed, they are fighting back. And whatever the reason that drives them, they can be manipulated. By compromising their anonymity. By making literally everyone else a “known variable”. With your help.

This really is the best way. Once there’s a REASON for extra security, people understand and want to learn more.

No one cares. Nobody around you understands the security, the need for it, and the requirements. They will pretend, to see your kid. And then immediately and completely stop caring. It works for making people adopt your favourite messenger, yes. But nothing else.

I have two kids. I asked people to use signal to send and receive the photos. Asking people to follow your requirements only works for the direct immediate communication. The photos of my kids were sent by the recipients I sent them to (over signal) to other members of the family, over gmail (unencrypted), WhatsApp, Instagram, etc. I learned that years after.

This was in direct violation of my express requests. When I confronted them, they played dumb.

So, not to be a buzzkill here OP, but if you did this to get more people to use your messenger of choice, good job, it worked. If you did this so the pics of your kids stayed on safe apps, don’t fool yourself. They didn’t.

Without paywall.

Would it not be “additive burn-in” and “subtractive burn-in” or something then? Or “differential burn-in?”

Nice work. 👍

the fact that you think the “G” stands for “Generative”

You’ve shown your IQ right there. No time to waste with you. Goodbye.