Ne danke. Tankie-Instanz-Nutzer sagt Tankie-Scheiße. Muss ich mich nicht drauf einlassen.

Kommunismus? 😂 Diese deine Einschätzung der Situation ist wirklich glorreich daneben haha

deleted by creator

Vergleichst du hier jetzt Biden mit Hitler?

Wie kommst du auf diese wirre Idee? Erklär doch mal

deleted by creator

lol, als ob die Leute, die damals Hitler für das geringere Übel hielten, heute Biden wählen würden.

Was ich geschrieben habe, war, dass jemand, der immer das mutmaßlich geringere Übel wählt, unter schlechten Vorzeichen auch ein an sich absolutes Übel wählen würde.

Insofern ist diese Position an sich bereits ein moralischer Bankrott und eine Verfallsform eines demokratischen Selbstverständnis.

Was du da reindeutest sind stattdessen Gleichsetzungen auf dem Niveau eines Achtklässlers. 😀

Am Ende wähle ich immer das geringere Übel,

Immer noch besser als Papen oder Schleicher, haben sie gesagt.

Als Zeitung willst du ständig neue Rückschläge, Lichtblicke, Helden, Bösewichte, Chancen, Hoffnungen etc. Eine sachliche Analyse liest doch kaum jemand. … und wenn es niemand liest sind die Werbenetzwerke enttäuscht. Das will ja nun niemand.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Good video I didn’t know. Thank you!

Again, you’re confused.

I think your credibility would be greater if you weren’t so bad at trying to gaslight the other participants. 😄

irony is a difficult concept

What a clownish thing to say.

That doesn’t sound convincing at all. There’s just no irony in addressing privacy on YouTube.

There’s no irony in talking about press freedom in the unfree press nor is there anything ironic about a serf lamenting the socage in their Middle Ages village squares.

People converse where people are. That is trivial.

If you think that putting content on YT and pushing more people to the platform hence giving them more data while talking about protecting your data from corporations is not ironic then you simply don’t know what irony is.

It’s either that… or - and that’s possible as well - you might be wrong. There’s entire meme traditions surrounding the ridiculousness of your remark.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-somewhat

Yes, for sure, by simply connecting to the internet using my local provider and public backbone infrastructure (I’m not in US) I’m supporting corporations. Next you will tell me I’m supporting Saudi Arabia by turning light on in my bathroom.

You are getting dangerously close to understanding my reply. It was deliberately ridiculous, and is equivalent to the ridiculousness of your initial observation. Yes, there is and will be discourse around privacy on YouTube. No, it is not ironic.

I get it, I just find it ironic that people post privacy related content on a platform run by the worst company in the world privacy wise.

This website you are commenting on has been delivered to you through billions worth of corporate infrastructure. Often these companies have long track records of privacy violations and corruption, and you reproduce their power by your participation. Yet you still seem to be using the Internet.

In the video, it sounds like the account will still be associated with a phone number, but users will be able to hide the number on Signal itself. Essentially creating a second on-platform identifier.

This would solve the expected spam problem that would occur if the phone number requirement were removed, and might protect against stalkers et al, but intuitively I’d say you could probably require Signal to reveal the phone number associated with a username. So it’s probably not a step towards anonymity.

… anyway: super exciting and very welcome. Hopefully they will finally ship it. … after hinting at it for several years.

Open source can make it easier to audit software, but we’re long past the point where we can’t audit unfree and/or closed source software. Open source is great and important, but the debate around open source regarding trust and security is often a sideshow.

If 1. all participating devices are sufficiently secure and will be sufficiently secure in the future, 2. no participating device backs up your conversations to the cloud or only does so in a sufficiently encrypted manner, and 3. no participating user leaks your information in any other way, then yes, the general expectation is that your WhatsApp chats with people are encrypted. Keep in mind that defaults, nudges, and people work against you in this long list of requirements.

Oh, and… more importantly… metadata. But that’s a separate issue. WhatsApp’s encryption claim could be entirely true, but still work against user privacy, simply because those conditions are almost never true …and also, again, meta data.

Users conscientious enough to consistently meet all of these requirements could simply use a platform deemed less hostile to user privacy, such as Matrix or Signal.