I haven't been around these communities in a while, so I can't really speak for /c/privacy as much as /r/privacy and other communities, but I've noticed far far far far too many posts which are blindly perfectionist, with no consideration of threat capabilities or their motivations. Privacy is futile without a realistic threat model, that's how you get burned out solving non-problems and neglecting actual problems.
My threat model is largely just minimizing surveillance capitalism and avoiding basement-dweller neo-nazi stalkers from connecting any dots between my online personas and real life identity. Even for that, my measures are a bit excessive, but not to the point where I'm wasting much time or effort.
Daily reminder: "more private" and "more secure" are red flags. If you see or say these, without a very specific context, it's the wrong attitude towards privacy and security. They're not linear scales, they're complex concepts. That's why Tor Browser is excellent for my anonymity situation but atrociously insecure to anyone who is being personally targeted by malware (tl;dr monoculture ESR Firefox[1]). That's why Graphene is not automatically anti-privacy simply because it runs on a Google Pixel and Android-based OS. (Google is one of my main adversaries.) And I think this simplistic 'broscience' style of "[x] is better than [y], [z] is bad" discourse is harmful and leads people into ineffective approaches.
I’ve never heard of a republican being called a liberal though.
US casual political rhetoric is all kinds of screwed. In political science terms, plenty of Republicans are conservative liberals, Libertarians are essentially classical liberals, and the people you're used to calling liberals are social liberals, aka progressive liberals. The USA is [still...] a liberal democracy, one of the many types of democracy.
Tor Browser (daily driver) because I really hate surveillance capitalism. I have fallbacks but rarely need them. Can recc LibreWolf and Ungoogled Chromium.
Great feature! One of my concerns when I dipped my toes into ComfyUI was that I struggled to find ways of avoiding spaghetti layouts. Tools like this to neaten and abstract the workflow can do wonders (although I hope it's done in a smart, clear way that doesn't confuse newcomers by hiding the important parts from them)
This is what democracy looks like, and it should be respected.
Why should it be respected? Should we respect it any more than the US democracy which elected a thug? A system isn't automatically respectable just because it's one type of democracy.
I can see some unofficial XFCE guides for getting .webp thumbnails working, but I haven't seen a Mint one so use them at your own risk. (Works by default in Cinnamon)
and most of them are globalists and most of the globalists wear tiny hats
That's not the situation, and using codewords doesn't hide that you're referring to jewish conspiracy theories. Western governments aren't supporting the zionist regime because they're occupied by 'globalists' or because they're jewish. Jews frequently are anti-zionist and zionists frequently aren't jewish. Governments support the regime because it's tactically useful for their imperialism in the Middle East, which is rich in resources and an important land trade hub, among other things. The US especially benefits from having a strong military power in the region to threaten the surrounding countries.
As for globalism, that's really just the inevitable end result of capitalism once it can no longer grow in its own country, it must seek other markets to expand into or exploit for labor, either through military force (e.g. Opium Wars for forced drug trade, war in Iraq for oil acquisition), economic pressure, cultural power or diplomatic power. Global imperialism is driven by economics, whether leaders feel like conspiring or not is largely irrelevant to it because at the end of the day they can't survive by ignoring economics, by material factors, which demand them to either give up their position or expand into foreign markets globally.
I've conquered the tabs demon (cleared on exit, anything actually important goes in a proper to-do app) and the downloads folder demon (...mostly). But will I ever conquer the Inbox imp?
It's a common and well-understood word, you're completely correct, and really any word is a valid word, although it's pretty clear the teacher was trying to teach formal English habits (which unfortunately can be useful to know) and it ain't that.
It's a vibe, not an actual analysis of political economy.
People don't magically change their worldview because they have more money, but a person's economic relationship (e.g. owning a business, or being an employee) will guide their class interests - someone like Rowling who primarily makes money from ownership rather than work will materially benefit from conservative economic interests. And since capitalism rewards profit over social contribution, those of the business owners who don't care about other people enough to sacrifice profitability are (generally) more able to build wealth, so there are more right-wing types in mega-wealthy circles, not simply because they have wealth (this also includes those feigning left-wing ideals, like rainbow capitalism and philanthrocapitalism, to exploit real social movements for reputation and profit).
This Wikipedia page gives a quick rundown of how a person's politics and their role in the economy intertwine, although it's probably more useful to learn the concept through pamphlets or books which provide historical evidence, examples and related concepts. My recommendation - Not pointlessly academic or dated, relatively general, has nice and neat chapters for specific questions.
You also have to remember these people have a voice because we give it to them.
In some ways, sure, but these people also have a voice because owning-class mass media gives it to them. You can literally buy a figurative microphone. Pay for a platform. We don't assume people with money are worth listening too, they're simply the ones talking on every channel.
I don't know, but my guess is it might still be able to detect some cross-platform malware signs and detect malware intended for Windows on Linux machines (e.g. I can download a PDF or .docx that is harmless on my machine, but if I reupload and a Windows user downloads it, I've spread malware regardless). IIRC ClamAV is sometimes used to scan attachments on an email server, often looking for Windows exploits being sent through the server.
Yes. There are also people who consider themselves apolitical and think excluding people for their beliefs is simply discrimination and therefore bad. There are also active neo-Nazis who pretend to criticism fascism to try and blur that line. It's a complex world.
comfy @ comfy @lemmy.ml Posts 53Comments 1,200Joined 3 yr. ago
I haven't been around these communities in a while, so I can't really speak for /c/privacy as much as /r/privacy and other communities, but I've noticed far far far far too many posts which are blindly perfectionist, with no consideration of threat capabilities or their motivations. Privacy is futile without a realistic threat model, that's how you get burned out solving non-problems and neglecting actual problems.
My threat model is largely just minimizing surveillance capitalism and avoiding basement-dweller neo-nazi stalkers from connecting any dots between my online personas and real life identity. Even for that, my measures are a bit excessive, but not to the point where I'm wasting much time or effort.
Daily reminder: "more private" and "more secure" are red flags. If you see or say these, without a very specific context, it's the wrong attitude towards privacy and security. They're not linear scales, they're complex concepts. That's why Tor Browser is excellent for my anonymity situation but atrociously insecure to anyone who is being personally targeted by malware (tl;dr monoculture ESR Firefox[1]). That's why Graphene is not automatically anti-privacy simply because it runs on a Google Pixel and Android-based OS. (Google is one of my main adversaries.) And I think this simplistic 'broscience' style of "[x] is better than [y], [z] is bad" discourse is harmful and leads people into ineffective approaches.