verassol

First of all, don’t waste your precious time enjoying life with privacy worrying and fear. It’s just not worth it.

I don’t know why, but I get the impression the device you are struggling to make more private is a phone. If that’s the case, the extent to which you can make things work is indeed very limited, so don’t try to push it too hard.

You could use a tool like a firewall to have a more high-level control over all apps, like blocking them all and only allowing a few.

This may be less overwhelming than trying to block and contain each app individually. Now, you will still need to allow some Google stuff to have a Google phone work properly (to use the Play Store for example). If you want to go further, I’d suggest trying another OS other than Android, but that may make your phone even less compatible with what you are relying on, so it may be a better idea to instead try it on an old phone first.

On a PC, you have more freedom. Instead of trying to block everything from Google, for instance, you can rely on a separate browser profile (or Firefox Containers if that’s inconvenient) for things that really need Google (e.g. Meet, work/school using Google Apps, whatever) and in your main browser profile you can rely on alternatives. For example, instead of trying to access YouTube behind a Google blocking extension, you could use Invidious or a dedicated app like FreeTube.

I hope you can feel more at ease with the sense of being watched and tracked online, but remember that’s not worth loosing your best moments for if it ends up just causing more distress to you.

It’s a thing!

I think you have a point there, but the reasons why Mint does not ship a streamlined version may be simply because the maintainers don’t want to bother with a whole different context to build, document and support.

I do think there would be value in a less “batteries included” Mint. I disagree with people in this thread who claim the “whole purpose” of Mint is all the stuff it packs, because it goes far beyond the essentials. Mint develops a lot of GUIs for the user to be able to configure the system. I think just these plus the in-house Mint core apps would make for a sweet, lightweight and less bloated system that would have real appeal, but that would also mean more work for the Linux Mint team and perhaps it wouldn’t really mean much for their audience.

I can’t seem to block them by just enabling annoyances blocks on my end.

“EasyList – Other Annoyances” has this:

! Google signin popup
###credential_picker_container
###credential_picker_iframe

“AdGuard – Popup Overlays” has this:

! Warning: check, if auth using Google is not broken
||accounts.google.com/gsi/client^$third-party,script,domain=<several specific domains here>

My impression is that the rules want to avoid breaking Google sign-in completely, which this rule may do.

1. Install UBlock Origin
2. Click the extension’s icon
3. Click the gears icon for settings
4. Open the “My filters” tab
5. Add a line with ||accounts.google.com/gsi/iframe/select?*

Steps 2 and 3 can be replaced by going to about:addons, finding UBlock Origin, clicking the ... button and selecting “Preferences”.

Consider antiX. It’s very lightweight, supports 32 bit and you’ll have access to the Debian Repos.

Thank you for sharing. Your perspective broadens mine, but I feel a lot more negative about the whole “must benefit business” side of things. It is fruitless to hold any entity whatsoever accountable when a whole worldwide economy is in a free-for-all nuke-waving doom-embracing realpolitik vibe.

Frankly, not sure what would be worse, economic collapse and the consequences to the people, or economic prosperity and… the consequences to the people. Long term, and from a country that is not exactly thriving in the scheme side of things, I guess I’d take the former.

That’s interesting. I was looking up “Lemmy Terms of Service” for comparison after getting that quote from the Reddit ToS and could not find anything for Lemmy.ml. Now after you mentioned it, looking on my Mastodon instance, nothing either, just a privacy policy. That is indeed kinda weird. Some instances do have their own ToS though. At least something stating a sublicense for distribution should be there for protection of people running instances in locations where it’s relevant.

the claimants were set back because they’ve been asked to prove the connection between AI output and their specific inputs

I mean, how do you do that for a closed-source model with secretive training data? As far as I know, OpenAI has admitted to using large amounts of copyrighted content, numberless books, newspaper material, all on the basis of fair use claims. Guess it would take a government entity actively going after them at this point.

Yeah, their assumption though is you don’t? Neither attribution nor sharealike, not even full-on all-rights-reserved copyright is being respected. Anything public goes and if questions are asked it’s “fair use”. If the user retains CC BY-SA over their content, why is giving a bunch of money to StackOverflow entitling OpenAI to use it all under whatever terms they settled on? Boggles me.

Now, say, Reddit Terms of Service state clearly that by submitting content you are giving them the right to “a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable, and sublicensable license to use, copy, modify, adapt, prepare derivative works of, distribute, store, perform, and display Your Content and any name, username, voice, or likeness (…) in all media formats and channels now known or later developed anywhere in the world.” Speaks volumes on why alternatives (like Lemmy) to these platforms matter.

StackOverflow: *grabs money on monetizing massive amounts of user-contributed content without consulting or compensating the users in any way*

Users: *try to delete it all to prevent it*

StackOverflow: *your contributions belong to the community, you can’t do that*

Pretty fucked-up laws. A lot of lawsuits going on right now against AI companies for similar issues. In this case, StackOverflow is entitled to be compensated for its partnership, and because the answers are all CC BY-SA 3.0, no one can complain. Now, that SA? Whatever.