I think some don’t think of the ramifications. Some willingly let Google follow them around and save their location

Fair enough

I was talking about the “educating people” part. I interpreted as “let’s steer them away from Signal towards a better solution”. If it’s not the intent then my comment is irrelevant

Not = content not encrypted, or not worse

Accept defects != ignore

I have a credible source that says they’re scanning media being sent. They have a CSAM or related department. No idea how that works but I heard it exists. Can’t find anything about it on the internet however to confirm

Worse with an asterisk. For making contents encrypted - no, anything else - yes

Opinion: I think painting in Signal in such negative light is more harmful in the practical sense. Having fragmented messaging towards the public that does not care about many of these aspects just makes them a lot more hesitant to change, from my perspective.

We as a community should, in my opinion, pick a “good enough” solution for the majority of the people we interact with. That in itself is a market force to show interest and demand for private solutions. Most people I know don’t have the tools or knowledge or time to understand nuances and all they’ll hear are conflicting messages.

For us more technically inclined people: hell yeah, let’s figure out the ideal model and bring it up to maturity so others can join when it’s fleshed out. E.g. when lemmy came to my attention in the reddit 3rd party app fiasco, I was really confused on how to sign up and use it. And I’m no stranger to tech.

Edit: spelling

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bP80DEAbuo

Noise pollution also in ths inaudible range

Or even be released in any form (I’m assuming here AI doesn’t use DDR memory but some oyher related type)

They should’ve went with football fields instead, and weight in washing machines

Just like WhatsApp did when they introduced the TOS change for WhatsApp for Business

Sometimes it’s really easy, open a bunch of code files and see if it’s littered witb comments. If it is: likely sloppified

I think it’s important to note that human review is not = quality always, it’s case by case and a lot of times the nuance and potential problems don’t appear until the code has been fiddled with manually in my experience.

Basically saying that it depends on how it was used, but my hunch is using AI for new languages for production use without an expert to help is a bad use case since the new comer has no idea what nuances exist. Unless that’s not the case here

Flock isn’t the only one with ALPR cameras, I hope the movements recognize that and block all ALPR deployments

The argument it’s making is not relying on technology (in this case some AI) because it can be distrupted. I don’t think having a single point of failure is unique to technology in general

Always remember you can dual boot if there’s software you can’t avoid using

If everything was a mistake then so is this statement, checkmate