Yes. It allows then to avoid ultimate responsibility for moderation policy decisions.

One of the better credit card rewards is a small percentage cash back, so literally free money. Money is fungible though, so any discounts on things you were going to buy anyway are effectively the same thing.

Musk: starts allowing Nazi shit on Xitter

Advertiisers: Hey, we don’t like Nazi shit. We might stop advertising if that keeps happening.

Musk: Go fuck yourself. Is that clear? I hope it is.

Advertisers: stop doing business with the guy who told them to go fuck themselves

They gave one of those to fucking Henry Kissinger. It clearly doesn’t mean what you think it means, if it has any meaning at all.

Telegram isn’t open source, so I don’t think you’re going to find forks of it.

I stand corrected. Telegram’s client is open source (GPL) and what OP is asking for is reasonable.

Yes, absolutely. Any time I need to buy a product I don’t know much about, I look for an enthusiast community with a FAQ. Most of the active, high-quality communities are on Reddit.

I would like decentralized services to replace that, but that’s a slow process, if it happens at all.

On one hand, that’s a shitty, greedy move from Reddit. All of the data, and value is provided by the users.

On the other hand, Microsoft does want to feed it into OpenAI and present it on a Bing search engine result page rather than sending the visitor to Reddit where they might join a community (or view an ad or ten).

If you have reason to think you’ll get searched, methods like this can be very effective. If you’re entering the USA and you’re not a citizen, there’s a chance having a freshly wiped phone will lead to you being denied entry.

Evidently quite a few people who have evidence of crimes on their phones don’t do that sort of thing; the person in the ruling this article about is accused of possessing child sexual abuse media on his phone. It probably isn’t a waste of resources with regard to finding evidence of crimes like that; it is a cheat code for searches that would ordinarily be unconstitutional, at least in judicial districts where the courts haven’t cracked down on it yet.

It isn’t random. They search phones belonging to people they suspect of crimes, but don’t have enough evidence to get a warrant for, people they think are connected to criminals even if they are not criminals themselves, and people they want to harass such as activists.

I use a computer a lot, and I have an expensive keyboard and mouse. I’m the target market in a sense; if there was a compelling enough upgrade to either, I’d probably buy it.

I can’t imagine what software features they could possibly offer that would qualify, doubly so as a subscription. I picked my mouse because it has lots of buttons, a responsive sensor, low-latency wireless, and it runs on a standardized replaceable battery. It would be hard to improve any of that with software.

“Security” as an excuse for self-serving bullshit isn’t new.

Sure, there’s a risk of breaking things. I can do that with a hacksaw and a soldering iron too, and it’s widely recognized that it isn’t up to the manufacturer of the thing to keep me from breaking it. We need the same understanding for devices that depend on software.

Locked bootloaders should be illegal. Manufacturers should have to provide enough specs that third parties can write code that runs on the hardware.

The headline is a little misleading. The actual ruling is that police can obtain warrants to install surveillance malware on phones when they have evidence the owner is using it to communicate about crimes.

The document states that Microsoft is obligated to make available its APIs in its Windows Client and Server operating systems that are used by its security products to third-party security software makers.

The document does not, however say those APIs have to exist. Microsoft could eliminate them for its own security products and then there would be no issue.

If an update to the proprietary Nvidia driver causes Linux to crash, that’s an Nvidia problem, not a Linux problem.

Having been a teenage boy myself, I wouldn’t dream of trying.

But I knew it wasn’t OK to climb a tree with binoculars to try to catch a glimpse of the girl next door changing clothes, and I knew it wasn’t OK to touch people without their consent. I knew people who did things like that were peeping toms and rapists. I believed peeping toms and rapists would be socially ostracized and legally punished more harshly than they often are in reality.

Making and sharing deepfakes of real people without their consent belongs on the same spectrum.

Are you surprised by teenage boys making fake nudes of girls in their school? I’m surprised by how few of these cases have made the news.

I don’t think there’s any way to put this cat back in the bag. We should probably work on teaching boys not to be horrible.

I guess I’m thinking about this from a solutions-oriented mindset: what concrete, achievable steps can various entities take to reduce child abuse? For an adult content platform, the identity verification steps OnlyFans uses seem reasonable; even when an offender uses an account owned by someone else, that often provides enough of a lead for investigators.

It seems to me that OnlyFans takes several steps that make it easier for police and prosecutors to do their job, some of which are detailed in the article. What additional steps do you think they should take?

The main thing I’m getting from the article is that adults who try to profit from abusing children on OnlyFans get arrested.