It’s weird to me that the only thing Mozilla says about AI in the ad, besides the fact it’s optional to use, is that people are creeped out by it.
If they only present a thing as bad, isn’t the natural next step to simply remove it? Nobody is forcing them to ship it.
No Phone number from ID
No Account name
No IP address
Registration date is unclear
You seem to be simply confused.
What I said was correct.
The data Telegram is sharing is right there
And we know Signal doesn’t and can’t because of its architecture and we’ve seen similar letters they had unsealed
That’s at least three points of data we know Signal can’t and won’t share.
Within 24 hours, Steam updated their launcher to be as fast or faster, without announcing it.
(Insert “look what they need to do to match our power” meme here)
I think I would stick with the tried-and-true product, instead of the new toy from people who say “coding is hard,” because the latter’s attitude is a red flag for quality.
other than the originator of the idea
The word does not belong to the person who “originated” (labeled) it. I’m sorry you don’t like the modern usage and have chosen to die on that hill, but the rest of us are here on the internet, not in the 19th century.
I’m sorry you refuse to make progress.
Fishface, I linked you to a particular part of the article. Did you miss it by mistake?
Here is the part you failed to read:
The Panopticon […] must be understood as a generalizable model of functioning ; a way of defining power relations in terms of the everyday life of men. No doubt Bentham presents it as a particular institution, closed in upon itself. […] But the Panopticon must not be understood as a dream building
If you are able to scroll down even further and continue reading, you’ll also discover workplace surveillance is considered a Panopticon… Even though it apparently fits into your definition of something that is “circumventable”, wherever you pulled that from.
You might want to take a quick look at Wikipedia, because you are trying to use inaccurate distinctions.
while imprisoned
No, it’s not placed in a prison, it’s about the structure of a surveillance society.
If you’re confused, perhaps you should read how monopolies work…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#%3A~%3Atext=can+drive+or-%2Cbuy+out%2C-other+companies.+A
I’m sorry, do you understand that you are repeating the definition of the panopticon, but say you don’t understand how a panopticon is a panopticon?
Let’s turn our attention back to “what about Proton’s business model is evil”, where I told you two evil things Proton did that apparently aligned with its business model: Destroying two competitors.
The only apparent defense you have for these two evils is to say a different thing is not apparently evil (vendor lock-in?) but a lack of evil does not absolve evil . I’d rather focus on that than being dragged down into a pedantic debate about which types of Proton emails really do lock users in (as anyone who has ever signed up for a website with an email address will tell you, it does).
The Panopticon works by making you worry you are always going to be surveiled even if there’s a statistically small chance you are.
That’s the joke.
Not sure why the Lemmy Privacy Community didn’t quite understand it, besides the obvious
Again, you’re coming from the position that Corporation is good until proven bad, a position that I thought everyone was shown, time and time again, is a bad position.
What guarantees Proton will be good?
When Proton bought competitor SimpleLogin, was that good for the average person? How about when they bought competitor Standard Notes?
The people interested in privacy don’t assume something is good until proven otherwise. They assume it is bad until proven good.
I thought that was a weird opener, but then they bring up the same thing a second time halfway down the article.
Amazing that somebody can write an article citing Cory Doctorow while missing literally everything has ever said about AI
Of you think Android is bad, wait until you see iOS…
If Google could get more powerful by killing Firefox, wouldn’t they just stop funding them?