mintyfrog
- 0 Posts
- 18 Comments
9·1 year agodeleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
If you’re paying for video or audio calls, you’re doing it because you want features or privacy. I doubt Twitter offers more features, and I know they won’t offer more privacy.
You’re kind of arguing against the foundation of human society. If we’re all required to “do our own research” about things, where does that requirement end?
Yes, you should do your own research. How much research you need to do depends on the subject matter, how critical it is, and the potential for motivation to mislead you. I can’t tell you where that ends, but for politics and news I am of the opinion that it should end a lot later than trusting a random stranger to censor your access to content.
How can I buy food if I have to do my own research on what’s healthy or what’s dangerous?
You probably should research this.
What about my tap water?
Yeah, you probably should also research this before drinking it because of how critical it is. Maybe get it tested or read your city’s water test results. Do they have motivation to mislead you?
How can I put gas in my car? Use electricity? A computer? A phone?
I’m not sure what the struggle is here.
Somewhere along the way you have to trust the systems that have been built by the people before us to function, and for people who work in those fields who are experts to use their expertise.
Yes and no. Should you see inconsistencies, you should probably verify that what you’re trusting is accurate. Inconsistencies like blocking wikileaks on a qanon blocklist. However, what you’re talking about isn’t even the case here. We’re talking about a blocklist maintained by strangers on the internet.
Perhaps you’re not familiar with this blocklist and how it doesn’t exclusively include QAnon sources, as I indicated.
No list can exclusively contain QAnon sources. It isn’t possible. You’re relying on someone else or a group of people to make that determination. In doing so, you’re blocking non-QAnon sources that you may just happen to disagree with. They also block far-right sites as described in the Github. How far to the right does the site have to be to be blocked? You’ve now created an echo chamber by blocking the opposition, all because you trusted that a list called “no-qanon” only blocked QAnon.
Even if what you’re saying is true, you’re now relying on someone else (or a group of people) to censor sites you wouldn’t like and also not be susceptible to those things when creating this blocklist. You’re ignoring the risks associated with false positives. You can’t outsource your own critical thinking.
Labeling the opposition as a deranged cult that must be censored doesn’t exactly sound anti-fascist to me. Again, not talking about hate groups here or anyone that advocates for violence.
Name a major media outlet that hasn’t been suspected to be influenced by Russia.
Nope. The linked list does. Check the URLs. WikiLeaks is blocked.
Doesn’t it sound at least a little bit foolish to trust someone else to intentionally censor the politics of your internet? You’re creating your own echo chamber.
How can you understand and disagree with the other side if you can’t even read their content? I’m not even talking about hate groups, I’m talking basics like WikiLeaks and the NRA.
They don’t seem as transparent as tutanota
Google Pixel has the most support for security, which relates to privacy. It does “phone home,” but likely only to Google. Removing all the Google software and installing GrapheneOS further hardens the security and vastly improves the privacy by stopping the “phoning home.”
It’s refutable, and also you can use Google’s results through a different search engine, like SearXNG
Who the fuck uses instagram for group chats?
Don’t use Gmail or Chrome
deleted by creator