Ferk

You mean “confidentiality”, not privacy.
Just the metadata related to whether you personally, traceable to your full name and address, have a Signal account and how much you use it might be considered a privacy breach already, even if the content of the messages is confidential.

Signal is the same in that regards.

And please, get all countries to actually start properly accepting ISO 8601 format for dates as a mandatory universal standard…

Obligatory reference: https://xkcd.com/1179/

Yes. The thing is that then you are no longer anonymously using yt-dlp.
The next step would be trying to detect that case… maybe adding captchas when there’s even a slight suspicion.
Perhaps even to the point of banning users (and then I hope you did not rely on the same account for gmail or others).
It’ll be a cat and mouse situation. Similar as it happened with Twitter, there are also third party apps, but many gave up.

I wouldn’t be surprised if at some point they start doing something like what Twitter did and require login to view the content.

The thing is… they are not really disagreeing if they are not saying something that conflicts or challengues the argument.

They just mistakenly believe they disagree when in fact they are agreeing. That’s what makes it stupid.

If you don’t like it, vote with your wallet

I’d say more: don’t use Youtube if you don’t like it.

It’s very hypocritical to see how everyone bashes at Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, Uber, etc. and yet they continue using it as if life would be hell without the luxury of those completelly non essential brands. If you truly don’t like them, just let them die… look for alternatives. Supporting an alternative is what’s gonna hurt them the most if what you actually want is to force them to change.

There’s also a lot of videos from rich Youtube creators complaining about Youtube policies, and yet most of them don’t even try to set up channels on alternative platforms. Many creators have enough resources to even launch their own private video podcast services, and yet only very few do anything close to even attempt that.

deleted by creator

From the actual regulation text:

the concept of ‘illegal content’ should broadly reflect the existing rules in the offline environment. In particular, the concept of ‘illegal content’ should be defined broadly to cover information relating to illegal content, products, services and activities. In particular, that concept should be understood to refer to information, irrespective of its form, that under the applicable law is either itself illegal, such as illegal hate speech or terrorist content and unlawful discriminatory content, or that the applicable rules render illegal in view of the fact that it relates to illegal activities. Illustrative examples include the sharing of images depicting child sexual abuse, the unlawful non-consensual sharing of private images, online stalking, the sale of non-compliant or counterfeit products, the sale of products or the provision of services in infringement of consumer protection law, the non-authorised use of copyright protected material, the illegal offer of accommodation services or the illegal sale of live animals. In contrast, an eyewitness video of a potential crime should not be considered to constitute illegal content, merely because it depicts an illegal act, where recording or disseminating such a video to the public is not illegal under national or Union law. In this regard, it is immaterial whether the illegality of the information or activity results from Union law or from national law that is in compliance with Union law and what the precise nature or subject matter is of the law in question.

So, both.

Yes… honestly, I don’t see this approach being worthwhile…

It’s better to search for full open source alternatives, front end and backend… like Lemmy/kbin for or reddit, peertube/lbry for YouTube, etc.

But C syntax clearly hints to int *p being the expected format.

Otherwise you would only need to do int* p, q to declare two pointers… however doing that only declares p as pointer. You are actually required to type * in front of each variable name intended to hold a pointer in the declaration: int *p, *q;

Developing a crippled port that is limited/restricted by design due to Apple policies would not really help Mozilla’s/Firefox’s reputation anyway. Apple fanbois will complain ether way.

If those fanbois want a Firefox app on Apple systems, it’s Apple the one they should complain to.

Yes… how is “reducing exclamation marks” a good thing when you do it by adding a ' (not to be confused with , ´,‘or’` …which are all different characters).

Does this rely on the assumption that everyone uses a US QWERTY keyboard where ! happens to be slightly more inconvenient than typing '?

They aren’t saying that the email/number is part of the message. What the are saying is that they are able to decrypt the logs in order to identify the senders .

It could be they cross-reference matching some internal ids / tokens / physical addresses of the devices together with all the data the Chinese government already has (or can obtain) …or it could be a bluff… who knows… there’s not enough information, and what we know is probably distorted.

deleted by creator

How can Apple debunk it?

If I told you I know of a way by which I can “hack” the lock of your house to enter it, how can you prove whether I’m lying or not? Specially if I’m not willing to show you how I do it, and I haven’t given you any proof of having actually done it that you can try to dispute.

deleted by creator

Most of those 90% of vendors are not big enough to pull it off. The ones with the muscle to do it successfully are apparently offered special deals by Google that make it not really worth it for them to spend the effort to try and invest in building their own store. Specially if doing so compromises that deal.

Add to that the technical hurdles of trying to run a store in an OS managed by the competition and with increasingly tight security restrictions for functionality that is considered “system level” (eg. automatic updates on F-droid don’t work unless you root/flash the firmware…), to the point that you need to make your own OS/firmware if you want to be a real alternative with the same level of user friendliness.

Then add the technical hurdles of installing/managing an alternative firmware for several phone models, to the point that it might be easier to become (or partner with) a phone manufacturer.

Then add to that how competitive and ruthless the phone manufacturing market is, with very thin margins, and how reluctant people are to trying something that isn’t already mainstream and doesn’t have the fancy apps from the remaining 10% of successful big companies in the Play Store.

A giant as big as Amazon tried to pull it off at a few of those levels (from running their own installable store on regular Android to making their own devices with their own firmware) and even with all the pull from Amazon it isn’t making much of a dent. And in some of the device categories (like the fire phones) they already gave up.

This is further crippled by how the increasingly tight security measures in Android make harder and harder to add functionality that is considered “system-level” and is as deeply integrated as the Play Store.

You can’t simply install F-droid and expect the same level of user friendliness and automatic app updates as in the official Play Store. Without esoteric, hackish and warranty-voiding rooting methods, you need to give manual user confirmation for every small update. You need to update 30 apps that accumulated because you forgot to manually update each of them? get prepared for going 30 times thought the same process of pressing buttons and giving confirmation for each of them.

If your grocery store “willfully acquired or maintained monopoly power by engaging in anticompetitive conduct”… then you’d be actively and purposefully affecting the ability for anyone to “try to build an alternative to compete with [it]”.

They aren’t asking Google to use a specific price, what they are asking is for them to stop offering special custom-made deals under the table for some of the partners with the intent of preventing competition. Nobody is stopping Google from offering the same fees to everyone indiscriminately… the issue is when they pick and choose with the purpose of minimizing/discouraging competition. Particularly when they are already the biggest one in their market by a wide margin, so they have a higher power/responsibility than a Mom’n’Pop store.