One thing I forgot to add to this was a different article by the same author: https://pluralistic.net/2024/08/19/apologetics-spotters-guide/
Referencing a book, the article lays out the corporate BS playbook for pushing back on changes. In the anti monopoly ad space, they're currently running play 1: there is no problem, people want targeted ads.
I feel like the whole advertising machine needs to be reimagined. I'm not opposed to learning about new and better products, but I've been conditioned to immediately distrust anything coming to me in the form of an ad. Pair this with the mindset of advertisers that they can't do their job without stalking every individual and it's a recipe for a global-level human rights violation.
that could be, but reading between the lines, it seems that the judges have just been brainwashed to think like the media companies want. The article mentions "users WANT targeted ads" and yet when given the option, 90% of FB users shut off targeting.
I think you're missing the point.of the essay. He seems to be saying that Apple has decided what content you should be viewing and that they have captured the "free market" because no amount of consumer crying will change it.
Consuming the content another way won't affect Apple in any way since they'll keep repeating their behavior. The author is saying that the government regulators need to get involved to restore your rights on what you can do with a device that you purchased. Near the end he even goes on to say that you (a consumer) have implicitly waived your right to sue Apple for this.
I guess the only option is to vote or maybe not use Apple products (but are the alternatives any better?)
I like the Van Halen brown M&M version. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/why-did-van-halen-demand-concert-venues-remove-brown-mms-from-the-menu-180982570/
Take some time and really analyze your threat model. There are different solutions for each of them. For example, protecting against a friend swiping the drives may be as simple as LUKS on the drive and a USB key with the unlock keys. Another poster suggested leaving the backup computer wide open but encrypting the files that you back up with symmetric or asymmetric, based on your needs. If you're hiding it from the government, check your local laws. You may be guilty until proven innocent in which case you need "plausible deniability" of what's on the drive. That's a different solution. Are you dealing with a well funded nation-state adversary? Maybe keying in the password isn't such a bad idea.
I'm using LUKS with mandos on a raspberry PI. I back up to a Pi at a friend's house over TailScale where the disk is wide open, but Duplicity will encrypt the backup file. My threat model is a run of the mill thief swiping the computers and script kiddies hacking in.
I've always been fascinated with the Holocaust and so when there was an interview with a Holocaust survivor on 60 minutes, I had to watch it. The woman said a bunch of stuff, but what stuck with me is that she said that, "people need to be given permission" to act badly. The episode showed previously undiscovered notes and pictures from one camp, showing officers having a picnic and enjoying themselves after a hard day of???
Her point was that these people were given permission. I now see it everywhere. Food fight in the school cafeteria? There were a few instigators who gave permission to the rest. A city protest that turns violent? Again, a few vocal minority of the group started the violence and then the rest joined in. I see it at work and I also see it on-line. Anonymity and lack of accountability also enhances the effect.
Whether the instigators are real or bots doesn't really matter because they "gave permission" to the rest to misbehave.
Found the episode: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pictures-show-nazi-life-at-auschwitz-as-jews-died-in-gas-chambers-60-minutes/
I was about to correct you because I've done lyft on web, but it looks like it's not supported anymore.
You're doing God's work!
Over my career, it's sad to see how the technical communications groups are the first to get cut because "developers should document their own code". No, most can't. Also, the lack of good documentation leads to churn in other areas. It's difficult to measure it, but for those in the know, it's painfully obvious.
🤔
I haven't been out there in 15 years. I'll have to check it out again!
I don't know the legal side, but employers don't want you to talk about your compensation with anyone. Maybe it's legal, but definitely frowned upon.
You're exactly right on both counts. When you hear it from politicians, the sound bite (byte?) is "to protect the children" which is ambiguous. I take it to mean to protect the data of my children, somebody else takes it to mean to protect my children from being brainwashed and the children running the social media companies take it to mean it's protecting their right to wealth. It's win win win!
If the US govn't were serious about protecting people, they'd implement GDPR and put data privacy into the hands of the individual.