I’m just a spectre out of the nothingness, surviving inside a biological system.
There are registrars that allow the info to be redacted from public WHOIS.
Unless the registrar accepts cryptocurrencies as a payment, there’s no anonymous way to set up a domain. Even if you fill fake information, you’d still need to use a credit card or bank account that’ll disclose personal info (such as full name, billing address, etc).
On my laptop, Brave for non-“personal” things (such as fediverse, SoundCloud, AI tools, daily browsing, etc) and Firefox for “personal” things (such as WhatsApp Web, LinkedIn, accessing local govt. services, etc). On my smartphone, Firefox for everything (I disabled the native Chrome).
I’ve been using Brave in a daily basis because it’s well integrated with adblocking tools, especially considering the ongoing strife regarding Chromium’s Manifest V2 support, where Brave nicely stands keeping its Manifest V2 support independently of what Google wishes or not.
Firefox is also good, but I noticed that, for me, it has been slightly heavier than Brave. So I use it parallel to Brave, for things I don’t need to use often. For mobile, it’s awesome, as it is one of the few browsers that support extensions, so I use Firefox for Android, together with adblocking extensions.
“The system can listen to conversations”.
What a timely coincidence! Patent got published basically at the same time Meta’s, Google’s and Microsoft’s “Active Listening” got public as well. 🤔
Regarding privacy, PGP is far better than out-of-the-shelf IM-embedded encryption, if used correctly. Alice uses Bob’s public key to send him a message, and he uses his private key to read it. He uses Alice’s public key to send her a message, and she uses her private key to read it. No one can eavesdrop, neither governments, nor corporations, nor crackers, no one except for Alice and Bob. I don’t get why someone would complain about “usability”, for me, it’s perfectly usable. Commercially available “E2EEs” (even Telegram’s) aren’t trustworthy, as the company can easily embed a third-party public key (owned by themselves) so they can read the supposedly “end-to-end encrypted” messages, like a “master key” for anyone’s mailboxes, just like PGP itself has the possibility to encipher the message to multiple recipients (e.g. if Alice needs to send a message to both Bob and Charlie, she uses both Bob’s and Charlie’s public keys; Bob can use his own private key (he won’t need Charlie’s private key) to read, while Charlie can use his own private key to do the same).
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – for ever” (1984 - George Orwell).
PGP/GPG encryption. It works with any IM, social network, anything (at least if the platform/program/app/medium allows for sufficiently lengthy messages so to carry the encrypted payload). There are some IMs that bring PGP/GPG natively, as well as extensions for existing IMs that also adds PGP/GPG feature, but PGP/GPG doesn’t need to be native to the app to convey encrypted messages, it’s a base64 text. It’s really an E2EE.
hot spring for hate content
As with every platform, even Youtube. Bc even the most advanced algorithmic moderation has its limits (i.e. they can’t pick up steganography nor subtle/creative language; in best case scenario, YT algorithms can barely understand a Caesar ciphered text), so it’d need manual reviewing, but there’s the catch: a platform can’t have strict manual reviewing AND be free, because human moderators have their costs. When a platform gets troublesome with excessive ads or oversensitive filters (Tom Scott has an excellent video regarding the problem with “vulgarity filters” when they’re set to pick up any “forbidden” words amidist a text without considering their context; e.g. a content that says about “cumulative sum” (a mathematical and statistical concept) gets blocked because how the three initial letters form a vulgar word, and this could get worse if one’s talking about NumPy’s method), two kinds of people will tend to migrate platforms: those who simply have zero patience with intrusive ads/excessive filtering (imagine a PHP developer not being able to upload/search for a video that uses the PHP function that breaks a string into array, because the function name is “explode()” and it could be seen by filters as “violence”), and those who want to distillate their hatred. If there’s a sufficiently well-known alternative platform, both kinds of people will tend to migrate there, until hate content becomes a gigantic problem and the platform starts to employ human moderators, turning the service into a costly service that’ll either need to be paid or need to have ads (except if they somehow manage to work the services through volunteering, such as GNU). Odysee is one of a myriad of video platforms where anyone can create an account and upload any video. Odysee is not the first only containing “dangerous contents” and neither will be the last.
What if a bot/crawler Puppeteers a Chromium browser instead of sending a direct HTTP requisition and, somehow, it managed to set navigator.webdriver = false so that the browser will seem not to be automated? It’d be tricky to identify this as a bot/crawler.
Honestly, I blame developers who, some years ago, decided it was a good idea to centralize the browsers into the same engine. Yeah, it was hellish to maintain code for all browsers at the time (IE5, IE6, Firefox, Safari, etc), but it was paradise compared to our current scenario: at least we really had options: WebKit, Trident, Gecko, as well as lots of smaller, almost unknown engines. Now, all modern browsers are different wrappings of Chromium or Firefox, while most modern sites are developed without the active worry to keep Firefox compatible (one can notice how modern HTML5 features varies across both of them). It has no easy solution. Don’t update, maybe? (Until sites start to complain about the outdated version)
This reminds me that Microsoft and Google have been intensely “collaborating” with code for Linux kernel as well… Too good to be true good-hearted actions from those corporations…
Because the ads constantly change across the websites. Adblocking is naturally a cat-and-mouse dynamic. However, the “remotely hosted code” Adblockers use is not exactly “code” (as in a JavaScript code, for example), it’s more a Regex code containing patterns for the different websites and different behaviors (for example, the pattern for the pesky HTML element containing the ad, or the pattern for some ad-serving domain). Google is extrapolating their meaning of “remotely hosted code” purposely, so they can “justify” their measures.
There are officially 193 countries, according to UN. Each country with their own laws, some of them (European) with common laws (EU laws). How is it humanly possible for a site to keep track of every single law or every single country? Laws are not a worldwide consensus. Also, who and what exactly defines what “misinformation” is? For example: the belief in the supernatural (such as the daemonic forces from Göetia and Luciferianism) is not a scientifically proven thing, so, if we consider “non-misinformation” the information that is capable of being strictly proven, then should absolutely every social network content regarding one’s belief be considered “misinformation”?
Just out of curiosity: why is nobody recommending Tox?