If you don’t need port fowarding for torrents, I recommend Mullvad.
I swapped to AirVPN after Mullvad dropped port forwarding. AirVPN app on Android & Linux kinda sucks. Linux one is usable at least. The Android one is just bad, but I just use the Wireguard app instead of the AirVPN app.
I mean it makes sense for error reporting. Lots of apps automatically report errors so that they can be detected easily, which would require internet access.
i mean google would have it anyway; and the app developer would be collecting the logs any way so the cost would be there already. this would just make it so they wouldn’t need to request full network access; just enough to get the logs.
You want a debate posting homepage links? At least take the time to post a brief summary of the main points concerning the issues for each language. At the very least the actual links where the information is located.
You’re right. Maybe I should have put more information about it. The idea was perhaps to find out what information the Lemmy community could share. I would like to be as experienced as other community members, but I’m not very expert yet :(
I’m really curious about the amount of money exchanged. It must have been an enormous amount in order to do a “I’d even sell my mom for that” and don’t feel dirty
There were multiple reports about sleazy companies reaching out to developers of popular apps and Chrome addons and offering them money for their accounts. The money is really good but there’s still a lot of devs that can say ‘no’. They will just use to track some people, it’s not a completely new business that will grow and earn them money like Instagram or something.
the developer, and this isnt exaggeration, does not understand gpl v3. he literally got confused when people told him he had no right to sell contributed code. you can see for yourself in the github discussions
I’m pretty sure what he sold was not the code but access to this play store account so that the new owner can push updated version to his current users.
You perfectly can sell GPL code. And you can double-license yourself (provided that you are the copyright holder) as GPL and a privative license. A lot of companies do that, legally and correctly.
I hope the money was worth tanking the good will of the brand. I wish I could code successful apps and the undermine my principles for meager amounts of money and fuck off into the woods
Does the bill need some amendments to clear up some ambiguity? Maybe, idk, I’m not Irish nor am I a legal expert; I know virtually nothing about the Irish legal system.
But based on the BBC article, it sounds like the intention of the bill is to get some hate crime laws on the books for Ireland, which they apparently have none so far.
I am very much in favor of punishing hate crimes/hate speech. Free Speech absolutism is braindead, and those who preach it are often hypocrites. Take Musk for example, self proclaimed free speech absolutist. Sure he allows people to hurl a variety of slurs on his platform but then goes and bans a bunch of left-wing accounts. Advocating for white supremacy is covered by free speech but advocating for socialism is not? That really ought to make you question if free speech is really Musk’s goal.
Law system here is basically common law. Legislation directs it but ultimately the judiciary are the final arbiters. Laws may be referred before signing for constitutionality but that’s quite rare.
I’m skipping a lot but that’s my “not a lawyer” ten second summary.
Yeah I’ve no issue with hate laws as a general exception to freedom of speech but there are some weird laws here. This does sound open to abuse from what I’m reading in OP but honestly this is the first I’ve heard of it and there’s not much to go on so I’ll have to reserve judgement until I’ve had a chance to read more.
In general I would prefer more free speech here, not less. Like I don’t want someone getting arrested for calling me a filthy paddy for example or having a meme of similar. It would make them a dickhead but I don’t think it’s worth jail time over. Again though I’ll have to read more.
We had a weird provision where blasphemy was illegal until recently but that was honestly largely because it required a public constitutional vote to remove (as all changes to our constitution do).
While writing this I’ve taken time to do some reading on current obscenity law status. The laws do sound quite archaic but have been reasonably implemented by the judiciary. Some examples below: (DPP is the department of public prosecution)
DPP v. DPP (2010): The Supreme Court of Ireland ruled that a website that depicted child pornography was an obscene publication.
DPP v. Walsh (2014): The Court of Appeal of Ireland ruled that a magazine that featured explicit photographs of adult women was not an obscene publication.
DPP v. McGivern (2018): The High Court of Ireland ruled that a book that contained graphic descriptions of sexual violence was not an obscene publication
Edit: If you make it this far you mention hate crime but not hate speech in the US. Freedom of speech there is reasonably close to absolute, right? Barring things like defamation etc.
I’ve seen that awful church protesting with what is absolutely hate speech “God hates fags” etc.
True, but another commonly cited exception is that it’s illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater where there is no fire. My assumption is the rationale being, if your speech is likely to present a danger to people it shouldn’t be legal.
But you’re correct, America is pretty tolerant of hate speech, and it does lead to some pretty negative consequences imo.
Probably a better comparison would be countries like Canada or Germany.
EDIT:
I do applaud you for taking the time to research it rather than getting caught up in the sensationalism of a Twitter post like so many others replying to me.
This is more of an argument against EM than free speech absolutism, since your point is that he doesn’t actually believe in it. But anyway it seems like there should be some possible middle ground between a truly absolutist position on free speech, and the overt disdain for free speech implied by a vague prohibition like the OP law. Isn’t it valuable for people to generally be able to speak their minds? That can be the case even if the loudest people hiding behind the idea are disingenuous, or if the furthest interpretations of it go too far.
Provided that the developer can either remove contributed code or seek copyright licences from every contributor it can be done. Whether this did happen or not is unclear, the developer appears a little arrogant about having written the majority of the code, showing little appreciation towards minor contributors. We cannot tell whether the contributors gave permission for their code to be re-licenced or if their code was removed.
Personally, when contributing to GPL projects I would expect that this kind of thing wouldn’t be possible. Using the GPL is a very philosophical choice of licence and is a move to say that you really care about your users
privacy
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.