Read the thread in full, it’s much worse than The Verge makes it out to be - that was actually one of my contentions with this article when posting.

I don’t think this take is accurate at all. Her actions in that thread appear (to me) entirely as a result of her environment, and honestly there is no basis for the idea she is not of sound mind. The victim blaming is really offputting.

If they’re true, it’s more than likely this kind of abuse was happening throughout the organization and continued up until these allegations, so I’m glad she came out with them.

A Mastodon alternative apparently. Seems they haven’t implemented ActivityPub yet? I’ll stay away.

I’ve been warning people that Google making up their own web standards will end in disaster, for years.

tl;dr: Customer Content encompasses all data originating from your machine sent to Zoom servers.

It never is by default. In fact, they got in a bit of a fiasco early on (before their current E2EE implementation) for using the term “end to end encrypted” after it was revealed they were simply referring to TLS.

It’s worth noting that KaiOS, a fork of Firefox OS, has been successful - particularly in developing markets.

You’re correct, I mistakenly copied the wrong section. (Posted this from my phone)

Fixed!

We’ve already seen this play out in several countries where web blocking is widely implemented (eg Russia, China.) People (generally) flock to state-endorsed alternatives rather than going through the effort of finding bypasses.

(As an aside, Chrome would probably comply with it. It’d be a lot more damaging for them than smaller browsers to block the entirety of France.)

Do you genuinely believe an average computer user, when presented with a block page, would attempt to circumvent it?

Maybe a small minority would, but overall I find it extremely unlikely. It takes a lot less effort to just download an alternative.

Theoretically yes, but I’d think that would just result in users switching to browsers which do comply with the law (Chrome, probably)

This does not prove your point. You said “most countries”, not “countries I arbitrarily deem to be important.”

The bill still leaves enforcement of specific content up to the platforms… so it seems they’re implying their own posts on these topics would be generally considered misinformation? I respect the honesty lol

Musk uses that term in his own way - the “free speech absolutist” line came from him talking in reference to Twitter moderation. He consistently claims to allow his critics to say whatever they wish without consequences.

Section 702 should either not be renewed at all, or renewed with restrictions to require a warrant for US person searches. The FBI has shown they cannot handle this power as is.

It’s not hard. In fact, the recent Twitter rebrand to X is just his latest attempt to launch X.com - he has tried before and failed.

The CCDH do not have the resources to fight Twitter alone. This is clearly an attempt to scare them into silence with legal fees.

Those who wish may donate here.

Just donated to the CCDH, they definitely don’t have the resources to fight Twitter alone.

Given that Twitter trust and safety was almost completely gutted upon his acquisition, I think it’s very improbable that type of content was moderated effectively.

https://fedipact.online/ is a list of instances that have pledged to preemptively block Threads. Includes my own instance (lemmy.name) among many others.