Only if the website is part of the product. Like if to use the product I have to login on the website or am forced to regularly use it or whatever. Then if it is advertised as 100% open source I’d probably be like ‘is it though?’.
That’s your worst-case scenario, right? Minors with ready access to vanilla photographs of naked people, on above-board commercial websites? So what. Tell me this abusive horseshit is the only way to stop that and I’ll still reject this abusive horseshit.
The pearl-clutching horrors imagined by conservative dullards are a mundane experience for millions of people, and relatively few of them become dog-fuckers or axe-murderers. Almost like a healthy libido is normal and 18 isn’t the day you take the shrink-wrap off your genitals.
Teenagers masturbating is a non-event. It’s as unremarkable and unpreventable as atomic decay. It will happen. Do you want it to happen to whatever quasi-erotica passes through the filter? Bugs Bunny in drag, beach volleyball, that one episode of their favorite show where everybody shrinks? Shoddy AOL filters probably made more furries than Disney ever did. AI’s gonna twist kids right up. Tell me with a straight face that’s better than real photos of fake tits.
By all means, keep actual smut off broadcast TV. Expect websites to put the weird stuff behind warnings. Don’t sell porn to minors. But if your website doesn’t take a credit card to visit, hey guess what, anyone can see it, and anyone will. Oh well. People who think that’s the end of the world are lunatics who mean it literally.
The first "porn" I saw was in middle school. It was a single bootable floppy disk with a pitiful menu of crude -- almost repulsive -- animations on an Apple II, basically no better than stick figures. The lesson I took away from it? How to program animations on an Apple II. And also that using one-voice beeps and honks over a bitbang speaker to suggest the buildup to an orgasm is hilarious.
I have mixed feelings about this article. It gets some stuff right, but also some stuff wrong and it misses some important details.
I don’t think Signal has actually received money from OTF (Radio Free Asia) since 2015 or so; if it needed any today it would likely get it from one of the less transparent US government internet freedom funding vehicles. There is no indication they are “facing collapse” beyond a blog post talking about their expenses and soliciting donations.
This article mentions “over a billion” people repeatedly, but doesn’t explain that number is actually referring to WhatsApp (which uses the encryption protocol developed by Signal). Signal says they have 40 million active users.
It doesn’t mention that Brian Acton (billionaire WhatsApp founder) gave them a $50M interest-free loan when he co-founded the Signal Foundation with Moxie in 2018, and became its “executive chairman” or whatever. That “loan” had increased to over $100M by the end of 2018, and is presumably much larger today.
It doesn’t mention that Signal Foundation president Meredith Whittaker worked at Google for over a decade, and co-founded a department there that worked alongside OTF on various internet freedom projects (and was later on the OTF advisory board herself)
it doesn’t mention the salient properties of Signal which actually make it particularly beneficial to US interests (keeping the communications of privacy-desiring people associated with their phone numbers while concentrating their metadata on Amazon servers)
My name is Walter Hartwell White. I live at 308 Negra Arroyo Lane, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87104. This is my confession. If you’re watching this tape, I’m probably dead– murdered by my brother-in-law, Hank Schrader. Hank has been building a meth empire for over a year now, and using me as his chemist. Shortly after my 50th birthday, he asked that I use my chemistry knowledge to cook methamphetamine, which he would then sell using connections that he made through his career with the DEA. I was… astounded. I… I always thought Hank was a very moral man, and I was particularly vulnerable at the time – something he knew and took advantage of. I was reeling from a cancer diagnosis that was poised to bankrupt my family. Hank took me in on a ride-along and showed me just how much money even a small meth operation could make. And I was weak. I didn’t want my family to go into financial ruin, so I agreed. Hank had a partner, a businessman named Gustavo Fring. Hank sold me into servitude to this man. And when I tried to quit, Fring threatened my family. I didn’t know where to turn. Eventually, Hank and Fring had a falling-out. Things escalated. Fring was able to arrange – uh, I guess… I guess you call it a “hit” – on Hank, and failed, but Hank was seriously injured. And I wound up paying his medical bills, which amounted to a little over $177,000. Upon recovery, Hank was bent on revenge. Working with a man named Hector Salamanca, he plotted to kill Fring. The bomb that he used was built by me, and he gave me no option in it. I have often contemplated suicide, but I’m a coward. I wanted to go to the police, but I was frightened. Hank had risen to become the head of the Albuquerque DEA. To keep me in line, he took my children. For three months, he kept them. My wife had no idea of my criminal activities, and was horrified to learn what I had done. I was in hell. I hated myself for what I had brought upon my family. Recently, I tried once again to quit, and in response, he gave me this. [Walt points to the bruise on his face left by Hank in “Blood Money.”] I can’t take this anymore. I live in fear every day that Hank will kill me, or worse, hurt my family. All I could think to do was to make this video and hope that the world will finally see this man for what he really is.
I use FreeTube which seems to still work fine but it seems to me like the browser plugin that opens YouTube links in FreeTube does not work properly sometimes
I’ve just started using freetube. I’ve noticed short periods of very low quality stream once in a while. Not sure if the periods match Ad time, tho. Do you experience those low Q periods?
I usually just switch it from auto to 1080p or whatever is available and that fixes it 90% of the time, sometimes it takes a second or 2 to fix the quality though.
I might but I am not sure. My internet speed is often a bit unreliable so if I had a drop in quality or issues with buffering I ´just attributed it to that.
To be frank with you, humans are the weakest security point in any system. Even if you did somehow (impossibly) 100% secure your device... you’re literally sending everything to X other family members who don't care about security anyway and take zero preventative measures. That's sort of the point of a chat app. All they would need to do is target your family instead of you to get the exact same info - this is how Facebook has everyone's telephone number and profile photo, even if they don't have an account. And if it's a WhatsApp data breach... well. Your family is just one in a sea of millions of potentially better/easier targets.
If there's anything interesting about your family chats that is actually secret info, it probably shouldn't be put into text anywhere except maybe a password manager. Just tell them not to send passwords or illegal stuff or security question info via whatsapp. It's all you can realistically do in situations like this.
We literally cannot keep all information private from everyone all the time, you have to pick and choose your battles. And even then, you'll still lose some, even if you're perfect.
That’s true in the sense that if a very sophisticated organization directly targets your family chat for surveillance, they’re going to find a way to access its content no matter what communication method you use.
Threat modeling is core to security, and that kind of threat probably isn’t the issue here. Mass surveillance, both government and corporate is, and neither is likely to secretly install malware on a family-members phone that can access the contents of the group chat. Doing that to large numbers of people would get them caught; they save it for valuable targets.
Governments openly forcing the install of spyware, as I’ve read China does in some cases would be an exception; you cannot have a secure conversation involving a device so compromised.
Noticed in one of your comments this is happening on Signal desktop. Is this a windows machine? Maybe update your post so people are aware it’s no on Android
Trying to do it myself but I’m stuck with YouTube.
I mean, I need a gmail account to pay for the Premium sub. And then, most creators are still using YouTube not the few alternatives… How do you guys do?
Pihole hasn’t blocked YouTube ads in years because the ads come from the same domain. And that’s not including the new crackdown that YouTube did on ad blocking.
I’m not trying to criticize anyone here for their choices, I’m just curious about the actual effects of such a subscription.
As of now the most basic one is 14usd/month, how much of that money gets to the creators that you Want to support? As of the writing of this response I don’t know this information nor searched about It. Do we have an actual diagram or any information saying how much are you contributing for each channel you are subscribed to?
Suppose you are subscribed to 28 channels and the sub money gets distributed evenly, that’s 50 cents a Month to everyone, not much “paying their due” in my opinion.
Now if you really really want to patronize one, two or three channels, wouldn’t sending money directly to them or paying their exclusive membership be a more reasonable way to go about It?
Disclaimer: I use uBlock Origin myself, as I really don’t like being forced to see ads.
That said, I don’t think paying for content is ‘barbaric’ either. It’s a personal choice. Either you want to pay and you can, or you don’t want to, or you simply can’t. All three are fine by me.
As a teen, back in the 80s, I could not and did not pay for content (it was not online back then but copying music, books and even movies, or computer applications was a thing). Since then I got a few jobs, and the money that come with them. So, I can support the creators I like and I don’t need to spend time copying anything or searching for workarounds to access it. Be it on YT, or anywhere else. I would love to not pay Google, mind you, but since so, so many creators are still only hosted there, and since YT premium makes it so easy to pay them (a single monthly payment)…
Fair point! See my answer on the other user’s message where I talk about targeted patronization instead of overall subscription, I’d love to hear your opinion about it
I’ve read it. Since you asked my opinion, here it is ;)
As of now the most basic one is 14usd/month, how much of that money gets to the creators that you Want to support?
(to be precise:) I don’t pay 14/month to support creators. I pay 14/month to be allowed to skip the ads that support those channels while still supporting the creators and YT. That’s what I’m paying for, and that’s what’s advertised in big bold face when you look at the YT Premium sub page:
OK, that plus YT Music but I don’t care much about that forced bundle (I use Apple Music). Not a word on supporting creators… Because we know its ads that are supporting the creators, not the premium subscribers. As a premium, I just pay to skip ads. The difference is essential.
Suppose you are subscribed to 28 channels and the sub money gets distributed evenly, that’s 50 cents a Month to everyone, not much “paying their due” in my opinion.
Creators do chose to sign upon YT knowing it’s ad-revenue that will pay them, not the viewer’s money (unlike say, on LTT Floatplane). As a a viewer, YT gives me the choice to a) watch those ads (knowing a small share will go to the creator) or b) pay a Premium sub to skip them (knowing a small share of my Premium will go to the creator). I chose b).
Is it enough revenue for each creator? It’s not to me to say. Not more than it is the creator’s job to worry if I, as a viewer, earn enough money myself to be able to afford the price of the YT sub ;)
Imho, a much more interesting question to ask would be: how much money to a creator gets from YT ads versus how much does the creator gets from a Premium viewer watching the same video? I’m willing to bet they get more from a premium than from the same viewer watching ads or at the very least that they get the exact same value but, quite obviously, I have no idea at all.
In the end, it’s a simple question of offer and demand. I want to watch X creators. Most are on YT. I can skip YT ads for a fixed amount of money, knowing that if i pay that money all creators will be compensated at least the same as if I watched the ads. Win-win. If it happens those creators consider ad-revenues are not enough, it’s a whole other issue. An issue they should discuss together between creators, and with Google. Not with the viewer or… only if it is to discuss the possibility of leaving YT and see how many viewers would be OK to follow them elsewhere and to pay to support their work.
I understand your view, it’s indeed a lesser hassle to just pay the subscription and be done with It.
I can be wrong about It, but judging by how big corpos operate things most of that sub money probably will end up in the company account, not the creators (again, I can be wrong about this).
Wouldn’t you say that using an adblock and supporting creators directly (hot take here since you could want to support 50 people), be a more reasonable and better approach?
Ads are fine, but while the company is being obnoxiously intrusive and predatory towards Its customers, it’s hard to just pay to not be inconvenienced.
judging by how big corpos operate things most of that sub money probably will end up in the company account, not the creators.
Agreed. Suffice to see the valuation of those corps. It’s not the tooth fairy that gave them all their coins ;)
That said, it is YT that host the gazilion of disk space required to store the videos, it is them who manage the website and all our accounts and payments, it is them who deal with comments and moderation, it is them that finds advertisers for creators, and it is them that provide everything else I’m not even aware of. Do they dot it perfectly? Nope ;) But they do it and they too should be compensated for that. And it certainly not free: disk space cost real money, as people’s salaries, even for Google. COudl they share it more generously? I’m willing to bet yes. But it’s up to the creators, not to me the viewer (I would view them on any other platform they chose).
Wouldn’t you say that using an adblock and supporting creators directly (hot take here since you could want to support 50 people), be a more reasonable and better approach?
Better, I don’t think so: it’s the exact same money that is spend in a way or in another. It woudl also ends up costing me more. Which I probably would not agree with.
Reasonable? Well, it can. It depends your priority. Mine, as a viewer is not to have to spend too much of my free time in managing subs and payments. What I want on YT is to watch stuff and have a good time, not turn that into another job of mine (or then I should get paid, like for any job ;)
To be clear, if I had to micro-manage every single creator I like to watch, I would watch… a lot less of them. A lot. I can only think about two, maybe three.
And that would not be good thing for either the other creators and for Google/YT. As a publicly traded company, Google, needs to be perceived as successful (aka, having a lot of views at every single second) and creators themselves, they need the views in order to, well, become popular. No view, no popularity (no popularity, no sponsors). Note that I did not say they need ‘Premium/paid views’ or ‘ad-supported views’. They need all the views they can get, even the ones behind ad-blockers. Ever wondered why YT doesn’t punish users of ad-blockers by not counting their views as legit views? ;)
Ads are fine,
Not by me. I think they are not. I consider ads (and the constant profiling that comes along) a major threat to our society (very personal opinion, but mine nonetheless).
That’s why I’m happy to pay to skip them (while still using an ad-blocker and multiple browsers, to make sure tracking is really screwed). That’s also why I pay for my search engine (kagi.com: zero ads, zero tracking), that’s why I have not owned a TV set since the very early 00s (when TV ads become so prevalent in my country, France): since there was no way to skip ads on TV, I stopped watching TV (I value my time, and my peace of mind, much more than any series or show… and then I can now watch them ad-free on Netflix or anywhere else if I really want, which is not that often). That’s also why I use iOS and not stock android (less tracking less ads, less Google), that’s why I also use a GNU/Linux Debian laptop and a Mac desktop. And that’s why I will never use a Microsoft product ever again: I stopped using Microsoft the day they decided to introduce ads in their OS, making it obvious to anyone all the tracking that was going on. I refuse that. Ads in the OS, ffs…
but while the company is being obnoxiously intrusive and predatory towards Its customers, it’s hard to just pay to not be inconvenienced.
Sorry, I’m not sure I understand that sentence (I try my best to get better but my English is still so limited). Would you mind explaining it otherwise?
Try Invidious, FreeTube, NewPipe,… All allow you to watch regular youtube content without ads. You can also create instance local accounts to “create playlists” and “subscribe” to people.
I think you might try to bite off more than you can chew here. You keep insisting that you want to somehow see the data that's saved on your device. Why exactly do you want to inspect the local cache of those sites? What do you expect the benefit to be? And what's more: what do you expect such a local cache to look like?
Yeah, okay. So: Clearing Browser cache is a common feature in any webbrowser (even Chrome, and if Chrome has it, everyone has)
Regarding insights into the local cache: Are you technically versed enough to understand what you are seeing? If not, what good would looking at the cache do to you? I mean, whatever is in that cache is no indication about your privacy at all. As @minitycactus found out, Wikipedia logs your last visit. Do they spy on you? Very probably not. Besides, whatever they put into local cache is not something they have on their servers,
I wouldn't put too much energy into a search for that specific feature.
I use Authy and am logged in on multiple devices so if I lose my phone I can still access the 2FA on my laptop. Then log back into the new phone using the laptop.
On DDG I can type in an exact company or product name and not get a proper result, it’s crazy. Google seems to find the stuff no problem, it’s really quite frustrating when the search engine isn’t even capable of basic queries.
privacy
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.