I wonder why such discussions are always framed as an all or nothing propositions. Zero knowledge systems are a decades old invention. Just very briefly: based on some ID a site issues cryptographycally signed tokens claiming some fact, e.g. the requester being an actual real person, adulthood, etc. Such a token could be presented by an otherwise anonymous user to a 2nd site with their own signature as proof of said property in order to consume their service. Tokens could even be single use.

A requirement to prove someone is, in fact, a human is not unreasonable. Banning bots or bad actors could be a solution to a lot of the problems on social media etc…

There is naturally a major shortcoming of this scheme, authoritarians could not track people…

Besides the critique towards the person have you any insights as to which of his statements could be biased?

I’m just going to leave this here for reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

This is a ridiculus statement coming from a government official. Can’t imagine any other motivation than a clickbait equivalent intended to sling the topic in the public limelight.

Given enough effort and time all software can be reverse engineered. So “jailbreaking” is plausible. But that is just one piece of this puzzel. Here is a more informed version https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X9ww6FtUhE

It is simple: nowadays security awareness is drilled in for most of the online population. If presented with a choice people can’t oversee, the default safest option is not to chose. I mean, how many new Mastodon users know any of these servers?

So, as couter-intuitive or even ironic it may seem, the “problem” is choice. People need to learn that social media is no longer a single entity, but more like email or choosing a bank.

Off-topic, but…

it occurred to me the other day that Tesla (the actual person) has been exploited by Edison in real life. A century later his name is exploited yet again by another “genius inventor”. I just feel bad for the guy.

Man, this photo sure looks like some weird ai shit… or the burn victim filter?

Bit of a nitpick, but according the quote they “problem” Google puts forward is about “…reducing dependence on American tech companies…” not adoption of free software. Their problem, it seems to me, is that they don’t want competition and with that a more level playing field. If the EU would promote or even finance local alternatives, it would only would hurt their bottom line.

As a reminder, Google itself is built and continues to operate on free software. They themselves have released and maintain important software such as Go and Kubernetes conform the open source model. They are also major supporters of governence organizations such as The Linux Foundation. But this is of course b/c they are smart in recognizing their own benefit.

With respect to Mr. Bunny, this is not saying much. Think about it, how many random picks would it take to find someone who better embodies those values than the orange baboon?

Sadly, besides the bottom line, the only universally relaible motivator for an organization is legislation.

So I keep hearing… Yet, I’m having a hard time believing that most people are even aware of those fancy features, let alone use any of them.

I accept that there are important models implemented as excel sheets. Reimplementing or even attempting to migrate away is viewed as risk. But this is a different argument.

Convincing CEOs is not our job. In general they have neither the obligation nor the habbit to take anything else other than their KPIs into consideration. Convincing elected polititians to legistlate is our job.

Some know already, some will bow to reason, many will do whatever keeps them elected. People will need to re-learn to play the long game.

Why, would a closed account be a problem for them? Imagine one day receiving a short video from your deceised mom saying hi and inviting you back to fb for a chat.

But only if you reactivate your account

kiss of ☠️ orban is done for 🤣

I sympathize with people who have close family there. Besides them, I don’t see the problem. Why would anyone choose to voluntarily visit a country, where they can refuse you at customs for not wanting to share your life story with the regime. There are so many other completely nice destinations, where visitors don’t get tackled by the local sturmtruppen for looking foreign.

Looks promising. Thanks for sharing

Yes. As was regulated in EU law. As with almost all changes in the EU, it took way too long before they managed to curb the funds. I hope that the internal rules will be thoroughly reworked to prevent/limit the damage of future deliquency. Still, good thing these problems were laid bare b/c of the misconduct of HU’s size. Imagine the damage if it was one of the bigger players… could be the end of the EU

Sure. EU rules are lacking, perhaps because the rule makers did not (want to?) anticipate willfull sabotage by a member state. That’s on them. So it took way too long for the EU to stop propping up this regime.

As for any kind of super majority I sincerly hope people will not make that mistake again. Way too risky. AFAIK this is what enabled this lot in the first place.

Anyway, best of luck!

It should work both ways donnit?

WD should run their business as they like. Given the simmering ai crash I’d make sure to get payed upfront. As for the other vendors, this is their chance to pick up market share.

Does she know you’re posting her picture without her makeup? 🤣