The beauty of Lemmy is the federation. Don’t like how an instance is being moderated? Make your own.

Nothing made by humans will ever be perfect, but at least with Lemmy the control isn’t in the hands of a megacorp trying to profit from us.

Never ask a company to pick between the right thing and profit.

It’s fundamentally impossible for a publicly traded company not to choose profit over ‘The Right Thing’, fullstop. Shareholders feel that have a fundamental right to growth, and if Google’s CEO were to choose ‘The Right Thing’ over profit, the shareholders can oust them in favor of a CEO willing to choose profits.

Enshittification is where every public company ends up, because the line MUST go up, no other alternative is acceptable.

run win.exe
Open AOL
Log in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsNaR6FRuO0

If you win the house and Senate with a majority then, you remove those that are extremely corrupt.

Democrats would need a supermajority in the Senate to achieve that. Anything less than 2/3rds and nobody gets removed.

I can’t help but see it as the foot in the door.

I understand that Mozilla needs money, but I can’t make everyone who uses Firefox commit to donating money to keep them from having to do things like this to stay afloat. But them going down this path makes me not want to donate at all.

I never said I was, just that I wanted to support the browser that respects my privacy, and this move is making me reconsider it.

As long as it’s open source someone will be able to find a way to turn it off, either by an addon or by patching and compiling the source code.

IMO, that’s splitting a hair.

For a browser that supposedly respects user privacy, the fact that this is opt-out rather than opt-in really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I’m going to reconsider my monthly recurring donation to Mozilla, especially if they keep this up.

Even if law enforcement can get a warrant, unless there’s a backdoor in the encryption then the data stays private. That’s the whole point of encryption.

The fundamental problem is law enforcement feeling entitled to snoop on private communications with a warrant vs the inherent security flaw with making a backdoor in encrypted communications. The backdoor will eventually get exploited, either by reverse engineering/tinkering or someone leaking keys, and then encryption becomes useless. The only way encryption works is if the data can only be decrypted by one key.

Anyone else remember when TSA published a picture of the master key set for TSA approved luggage locks and people had modeled and printed replicas within hours?

The power to make laws, like codifying Roe vs Wade, lies with congress.

I’m peeved about the SC ruling too, but they didn’t unilaterally hand over all governmental power to the executive.

Because the president had unilateral authority to make laws, right?

Nevermind Mitch McConnell standing up in the senate and saying they’d refuse to cooperate with Obama, it’s Obama’s fault.

AFAIK, the unilateral nature of TOS/EULA agreements in the day of Software as a Service hasn’t been litigated. Which means there isn’t a court’s opinion on the scope or limits of a TOS/EULA and what changes can be made.

Currently, Adobe has the full force of contract law to initiate this change without any input from consumers because a case about this has never made it to the courts.

It’ll be interesting to see where this goes, but Adobe will likely backpedal on their language in the TOS before any case gets to a Judge because the last thing any company wants is for a TOS/EULA agreement to be fundamentally undermined by a court.

The founding Fathers likely couldn’t imagine a Congress that wouldn’t impeach a Supreme Court Justice for such flagrant self-enrichment. But they were thinking about Congress as a more ideological body rather than a political entity. They couldn’t imagine Justices being aligned with political bodies; that was part of the idea of a lifetime appointment. Put someone in a job for life and they should be immune from partisan political bullshit from the outside.

They couldn’t envision justices who would trade everything for a lifetime appointment to support their preferred political flavor.

IMO, the solution is to let every President nominate a new SC justice, and retire the oldest one every election.