So much for MAGAts' defend of ScIEnCe againsts tRanGEnDeRiZum
whydudothatdrcrane
Imagine responding like that to any Lemmy post:
*Proton endorses Trump
*K
*Gaza ceasefire
*I'm baby
*The Right:* The market should be free to decide.
*The Market:* Decides
*The Right*: OUtrAgEOuS
Safer.
Well, they handed out activists' metadata in the past, for the French authorities. In their position of an e2ee provider who controls both ends as a default, they are in a position where the can fuck people over. This is exactly what Snowden described as someone pointing a gun at you while saying "Relax, I am not gonna use it against you."
So much for safety.
Ah, and my original point was: it is either safe or unsafe, the word saf_er_ means nothing during a genocide.
Oh, outch, what a blow to all the First Amendment absolutists of Lemmy, who chose to stand up to EFF and Techdirt. Here are some more arguments against X/Meta put in the most coherent of ways.
There is no democracy without free media, and no free media without democracy.
Down with the corporatist power grab. NO PASSARAN
It send a chill down my spine nonetheless
The little man does some heavy lifting
Well, then them part of the problem, aren't they.
Have a look at this analysis. The author shows that this is a very weak response to the deeper underpinnings of the "nothing to hide" argument. After all, you cannot argue people's personal preferences.
I think one of the ways to go, with everything happening right now, is that Meta can infer who is gay and/or had aborted a pregnancy and hand these predictions over to an ultranationalist secret service. So, your personal indifference to privacy amounts to a genocidal police state for your fellow citizens.
Very good paper indeed. Some of the arguments made (eg risks from data aggregation) can be found in more mature form in legal analyses of the EU's GDPR.
Fancier algorithms are not bad per se. They can be ultra-productive for many purposes. In fact, we take no issue with fancy algorithms when published as software libraries. But then only specially trained folks can seize their fruit, which it happens it is people working for Big Tech. Now, if we had user interfaces that could let the user control several free parameters of the algorithms and experience different feeds, then it would be kinda nice. The problem boils down to these areas:
- near-universal social graphs (they have all the people enlisted)
- exert total control on the algorithm parameters
- infer personal and sensitive data points (user-modeling)
- not ensuring informed consent on the part of the user
- total behavioral surveillance (they collect every click)
- manipulate the feed and observe all behavioral response (essentially human subject research for ads)
- profiteering from the above while harming the user's well being (unethical)
Political interference and proliferation of fascist "ideas" is just a function that is possible if and only if all of the above are in play. If you take all this destructive shit away, a software that would let you explore vast amounts of data with cool algorithms through a user-friendly interface would not be bad in itself.
But you see, that is why we say "the medium is the message" and that "television is not a neutral technology". As a media system, television is so constructed so that few corporations can address the masses, not the other way round, nor people interact with their neighbor. For a brief point in time, the internet promised to subvert that, when centralized social media brought back the exertion of control over the messaging by few corporations. The current alternative is the Fediverse and P2P networks. This is my analysis.
source
But what is the status now? Also, I think in the years to come the jurisdiction will also play a role. If the service is in the soil of a country that can subpoeana the encryption keys, then nobody is really safe.