It really is a choice to claim someone said something which they did not actually say at all.
Saying “they said x and I think they meant y” is entirely different from claiming “they said y” while knowing they in fact said x.
This is not controversial. Interpretations are fine, actively crafting disinformation is not.
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.
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.
Like yea, it’a technically a levie, not a tax. This whole “it’s different because it does not go through the budget” is such a learned talking point. We have it in Germany as well with our state funded public media houses.