• 2 Posts
  • 45 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 13th, 2023

help-circle

  • g0nz0li0@lemmy.worldtoPrivacy@lemmy.mlPlease, do not use Brave.
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Using the terms “telemetry” and “spyware” interchangeably makes the former seem more nefarious and the latter less nefarious. I understand where you’re coming from but I wouldn’t want to see the term “spyware” diluted to include anonymised data about how users are using product features.

    That’s not to say telemetry data is fine or that a company might claim to only use telemetry data isn’t actually using spyware.


  • One of my favourite youtubers recently quite his job to go full time on his channel. He’s been growing his audience and patreon backers and for a long time using the income from those videos to invest in his equipment and the gear he reviews. Eventually he grew the channel enough to go full independent.

    It’d be really hard to do that outside of YT’s monetisation model tbh. I think most YTbers start of making videos for shits and giggles and any money they get is like passive income. Then they catch a viral video of find and audience and start the consider the channel more seriously, and explore other monetisation models and opportunities. I get the hate towards Google and YT but a lot of the oddballs I love on YT might not have a platform otherwise.



  • It looks like this works like Apple watch on iOS: there’s an extra security layer as the watch also has to be unlocked. Smart lock just requires a paired device to be within range.

    An Apple Watch locks itself when you take it off, so if someone took your iPhone and Apple Watch from you they couldn’t unlock either device. I presume this is the same?

    Edit: the article implies that this feature allows verification when you initiate the unlock, whereas Smart Lock actually keeps the deviced unlocked the entire time the paired device is nearby, which in practice is very different and less secure.















  • Being a republican doesn’t automatically make them an asshole

    I’ve never argued or suggested this. I’m enjoying this thread and exploring this idea, but not a fan of strawman arguments :(

    people are probably amenable if you use the right approach

    Your original point was that that people aren’t responsible for the bad ideas of their party, so lecturing on on how to change people’s minds is disingenuous in this context.

    your neighbor is throwing dog shit in your yard and calling you names, yeh, direct your protest and activisim towards them

    And I think this is the core contradiction in what you’re trying to argue. Imagine your dog-shit analogy in another way: if a neighbour discriminates against you because you’re gay (let’s say makes comments as you pass by), you appear to support the idea that he is responsible for that view and presumably you can tell him to get fucked to his face. But if that same neighbour votes for a party that discriminates against you, while politely waving to you in the morning, you’re saying you shouldn’t hold him responsible because he’s probably a swell guy? The outcome is the same! You’re being discriminated against.

    For the record I wouldn’t yell “Fuck you Bill!” in protest if this happened. But I absolutely have the right to say “Bill, we’ve been neighbours for 10 years and I enjoy having you around for BBQ in the summer months, but the fact that you support the party that wants to see my way of life restricted in this way is really disappointing and upsets me” and I absolutely would not be OK if Bill argued that he’s not responsible for voting directly against my interests. And to be clear, I’m not saying Bill shouldn’t be allowed to vote against my interests, I am just saying that I get to call him out on that. It’s unbelievable to me that anyone would say otherwise, but circling back to OP:

    if you are talking to your neighbor, don’t make his party affliation equal to his personal belief