There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

xad

@[email protected]

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

xad ,

So what’s preventing those people from using bookmarks as “check this out later” tool?

Bookmarking a page does not give you control over its content. So if you bookmark something and the host deletes it, you are screwed.

If you instead clip the content or save it as a PDF, you retain access regardless of the original host.

For example, I save every good article I read as a PDF, which I cloud sync to a folder. I have a second folder for stuff I don’t want to keep open as a tab but still want to read later. There are probably far better services out there, but I like the lack of technical dependencies and lock-in.

xad ,

CEO is a homophobic shithead. … Privacy is important … Privacy is good … Society is toxic … calling out people who specifically want to legally control how others (harmlessly) live their lives is not itself toxic … His opinion is that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry. I think this is rather invasive. … My point is that someone who is willing to donate thousands to homophobic lobbyists doesn’t seem to care about gay people’s rights to Privacy …

And then:

I am not sharing political opinions

Brilliant.

Although I am not sure whether it is art or delusion.

xad ,

You obviously do not understand what am saying.

I don’t think you understand at all what being political actually means.

You clearly dislike this person because your and their political positions are at odds, and you seem to want to make that a priority. That is fine! I do that all the time.

I just thought it is absurd that you would think that this decision (or your argument) is not political, because it is.

I just tried to illustrate the obvious by quoting some of the many political things you’ve written before saying that what you write isn’t political.

Like… why would you think that?

xad , (edited )

I hate Temu, but this (apparently contracted?) Grizzly Reports report isn’t really all that trust inspiring, tbh.

Our experts identified a stack of software functions that are completely inappropriate to and dangerous

The stack difference to the Amazon app they list:

  • Package compile
  • Requesting system logs
  • Some code obfuscation
  • Mac address collection
  • Install permission
  • Wake lock

Meh. That’s just a sliver worse than your regular, off the shelves proprietary corporate app. I don’t see how they can pull off the promise of being a truly dynamic Android app from that report.

I do believe they hover up data, but they aren’t otherworldly super hackers. They will probably just ask for the data and the users will hand it over in a second. For most people, it really is that simple.

xad ,

Oh dear, thanks for the link. I would have voted no, too. It does not sound like a great institution.

From what I read in this article, I’m not even sure it would be democratic? … a state funded government advisory body which claims to represent a specific heritage - pretty strange.

xad ,

The context is important here - …

Why would context be important here? Institutionally it is a bad idea, even if an indigenous population ten times as big would’ve been mistreated ten times worse. The hard question would r: How would anything happening in the past improve this policy proposal?

It seems very lacking on a legitimacy level, appears to be functionally questionable and has evidently led to increased polarization prior to even being enacted.

The Voice was asked for as a product of the Uluru Statement of the Heart - not long, worth a read- ulurustatement.org/…/view-the-statement/

I like that it’s very prosaic and well crafted. I don’t like that they fail to make the case how past and current tragedies relate to the specific proposal. There’s also no evidence, benchmarking or any other kind of reference indicating the expected performance of their proposed setup. I’ve yet to find a paper outlining how the “voice” is actually supposed to work.

It was really first and foremost about having an acknowledgement that maybe, just maybe, the settlers cocked things up and that it’d better to fix things together. …

That’s cool. Why didn’t they do two proposals, one with the acknowledgement the other one with the suspicious institution?

… It’s not asking for anything “more” or extra …

It’s asking for the creation of a permanent advisory body. Are we on the same page here?

But now instead we get to try to explain to our kids why 60% of the country don’t think representation or inclusion matters while indigenous Australians will continue to struggle without a government that can listen to them.

I do think representation and inclusion matter a lot and, as said, I’d strongly oppose this advisory body. Do you think it’s a black and white issue? One needs to like this specific thing or be a bad person?

I don’t think that is a productive take on this referendum.

xad , (edited )

It really is a choice to claim someone said something which they did not actually say at all.

Saying “they said x and I think they meant y” is entirely different from claiming “they said y” while knowing they in fact said x.

This is not controversial. Interpretations are fine, actively crafting disinformation is not.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •