Anyone remembers when Chrome was the hot new kid on the block and we all converted the “normies” to it because it was so much better than IE? We’re reaping what we sowed.
@zaknenou@privacy it usually uses Diffie-Hellman key exchange which generates a shared key without revealing it to anyone. There are other ways to do it too.
It gets weird fast, because before privacy controls in the Lemmy source code mean anything, we need trusted third party verification of a server’s patch level, and security controls.
That can be done, and I think Lemmy has a shot at getting to that point, but it’ll be awhile.
In the meantime, I suspect the Lemmy developers are hesitant to add and advertise features that you can’t be sure are actually correctly enabled on your instance.
But yeah, let’s not let perfect be the enemy of moving toward better.
Edit: Assuming you completely trust your instance admin, we could start adding some basic privacy to actions taken on your home instance.
But as soon as the user starts interacting via federation, all bets are off - because the federated instance may he malicious.
I think we might see one or more “trusted fediverse” groups emerge in the next few years, with instance admins making commitments to security controls, moderation, code of conduct, etc.
So, in theory, the lemmy software could start implementing privacy controls that allow users to limit their visibility to whichever part of the fediverse their instance admin has marked as highly trusted.
But even then, there’s risks from bad actors on highly trusted instances that still allow open signups.
Anyway, I totally agree with you. It’s just a genuinely complex problem.
If all the people complaining would just contribute to the codebase this wouldn’t even be an issue.
Often, you even see the devs coming into threads like this and making suggestions, like “make a pull request.” They want more people contributing.
It’s tons of people whining, very few people contributing. Guess what? While at a certain point, adding developers stops increasing productivity, there’s a small window where adding developers does increase productivity.
If I am correct, Lemmy only has four main developers. That’s well within the range to add more developers and increase the productivity, making new features and security come faster.
So I get it, but things take time, and are complicated, which you thankfully can see.
People whinging about it in threads does nothing to change it. Donating to Lemmy’s development costs or contributing code does.
So much of it sounds like it sounds like its from less-technically-inclined people (some of its valid critique from experts, but they generally… write bug reports and do pull requests…) who just want it to be better but the only way they know how is to “bring awareness.” Well, all that “awareness-bringing” just amounts to spreading FUD.
I think we might see one or more “trusted fediverse” groups emerge in the next few years, with instance admins making commitments to security controls, moderation, code of conduct, etc.
There is now at least one system in place for admins to vouch for other instances being non-malicious, and to report suspected instances. It is called the fediseer: gui.fediseer.com
I haven’t played or even thought about a Halo game in probably 20 years. All of a sudden in the last week I bought the Master Chief collection on Steam and have been reliving my childhood a bit. Suddenly, my Reddit notifications are full of random posts from r/Halo - a sub I’m not even subscribed to.
I’m from Ireland and had never heard of this so did some digging and used bard to summarise (it did a very solid job)
Can you tell me about the proposed hate speech legislation that’s proposed for Ireland
The proposed hate speech legislation in Ireland, known as the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022, aims to strengthen existing laws against hate speech and introduce new measures to tackle hate crimes. The bill has been through several stages of the legislative process and is currently awaiting final approval in the Irish Parliament.
Key Provisions of the Bill
The bill proposes several significant changes to the current legal framework on hate speech and hate crimes:
Expansion of Protected Characteristics: The bill expands the list of protected characteristics from five to seven, including gender and disability.
New Offense of Incitement to Violence or Hatred: The bill introduces a new criminal offense of incitement to violence or hatred. This offense would apply to any communication or behavior that is likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or group of persons on the basis of their protected characteristics.
Hate Crime Provisions: The bill introduces new aggravated forms of existing criminal offenses, such as assault, where those offenses are motivated by hatred against a person with a protected characteristic. This would mean that such offenses would be punished more severely.
Protection Against Hate-Motivated Harassment: The bill also includes measures to protect against hate-motivated harassment, such as stalking, intimidation, and discrimination in employment or housing.
Proposed Timeline for Implementation
The bill has already passed through the Dáil (Irish House of Representatives) and is currently at the stage of committee discussion in the Seanad (Irish Senate). If approved by the Seanad and signed into law by the President, the bill would likely come into effect in late 2024 or early 2025.
Debate and Controversy Surrounding the Bill
The proposed hate speech legislation has been met with both support and opposition. Supporters argue that the bill is necessary to protect vulnerable groups from hate speech and to deter hate crimes. They believe that the current legal framework is inadequate and that the new offenses will provide greater protection for victims of hate-motivated violence.
Opponents of the bill argue that it is an infringement on freedom of speech and that it could be used to stifle legitimate criticism of religious or political groups. They also express concern that the definition of hate speech is too vague and that the bill could be used to prosecute individuals for expressing unpopular or offensive opinions.
The debate surrounding the proposed hate speech legislation highlights the complex and sensitive nature of this issue. While there is a clear need to protect people from hate speech and hate crimes, it is also important to safeguard freedom of expression and ensure that the law is not used to stifle legitimate debate.
What ways could this legislation be abused by an authoritarian government?
Authoritarian governments could abuse the proposed hate speech legislation in a number of ways, including:
Silencing political dissent: The vague definition of hate speech could be used to prosecute individuals for expressing unpopular or critical views of the government or its policies. This could create a chilling effect on free speech and prevent people from speaking out against the government.
Suppressing minority groups: The bill could be used to target and silence minority groups, such as religious or ethnic minorities. This could create a climate of fear and intimidation and prevent these groups from exercising their rights.
Spreading propaganda: The government could use the bill to silence journalists and activists who are reporting on human rights abuses or corruption. This could allow the government to control the flow of information and maintain its grip on power.
Stifling public debate: The bill could be used to prevent people from discussing sensitive issues, such as the government’s role in human rights abuses or the role of religion in society. This could prevent the public from engaging in open and honest debate about important issues.
It is important to note that these are just a few of the ways that an authoritarian government could abuse the proposed hate speech legislation. The potential for abuse is significant, and it is important to carefully consider the implications of this legislation before it is enacted.
In conclusion, the proposed hate speech legislation in Ireland is a well-intentioned bill that aims to protect vulnerable groups from hate speech and hate crimes. However, there is a risk that this legislation could be abused by an authoritarian government to silence political dissent, suppress minority groups, spread propaganda, and stifle public debate. It is important to carefully consider the potential for abuse before this legislation is enacted.
The whole age verification can be done privately, secure and without the possibility to get tracked. But imho still not really a good thing to do. Parenting should still be a thing.
Thank you for the links to Wikipedia and identity.com on that other thread. I’ve yet to wrap my head around how zero-knowledge proof could work for such a basic assertion as “user is of legal age”, which calls for a 0 or 1 answer. It seems very different from the examples given of polynomial computations to prove knowledge of an exponent in a complex math expression. I can’t see what could prevent any client to simply lie about the answer here.
privacy
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.