The EU can and should ban government and business’s from using twitter as part of their official communications. But if private citizens wants to tweet, then sure go for it, even the EU with it’s less then stellar speech record, particularly with the labeling antisemitism, still allows freedom of association.

If you want privacy and you drive a car, I got bad news for you. Public Transit is privacy.

That is extraordinarily rare and I’m not even sure if it’s possible anymore. That was potential attack vector in the 90’s where you have a port on network switch, and then you flood the cam table with thousands of bogus mac addresses until you fill it up, then the switch turns into a hub, and you can now sniff all traffic traversing the switch. These days I’m not sure what will happen if you do successfully fill up a switches cam table. Also cam table sizes are are much much larger now. ~128k entry’s vs maybe 1000 back in the day.

What took you so long? The cyber truck didn’t herald any changes re: Tesla’s Union Busting.

This is a cool proof of concept and pretty easy to adapt for almost any purpose not just text. I don’t think it’s “useful” but then again “usefulness” isn’t exactly well defined in the first place.

hehe

You voted for this, probably twice.

https://moguldom.com/406482/fact-check-obama-had-chance-to-codify-roe-v-wade-but-chose-not-to-prioritize-it/

Shut the fuck up.

I’m just not voting for either. It’s the least anyone can do.

What?

I voted Working Families party in 2016 and explicitly wrote in Bernie Sanders for the top line.

I’m not worried about needing to vote for either of them. As a leftist I care more about the ideas being pushed in various ways, not the people who say them. The ideas being pushed by nikki are the same as hillary. A war on “disinformation” requires verification of who said something, Nikki is just advocating for the next step., De-anonymizing.

Yet I doubt you cared in 2016, so why do you care now?

From the article: “The technology platforms are so much more powerful than any organ of the so-called mainstream press, and I do think that there has to be not just an American reckoning but a global reckoning with the disinformation, with the monopolistic power and control, with the lack of accountability that the platforms currently enjoy,” Clinton said.

How is that materially different then what Haley said?

What should the government do about “misinformation” and how is it materially different then what Nikki Haley “vows” to do?

I didn’t realize Hillary Clinton was running in the Republican National Convention. But it makes sense that the parties of Capital both want to control non-monetized social media.

For context, remember 2016 when Hillary went to war against “anonymous” what do you think she mean by that?

Or this? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/06/hillary-clinton-guardian-disinformation-big-tech-facebook

Setting up a mitm on the internet is a non-trivial task and I’m quite confident you have neither the access, nor the ability to do that. Very few people do. So let’s just say that isn’t an attack vector that anyone should be concerned with.

Why? There is absolutely zero risk in SSHing into “random” machines especially since I’m using public ssh-keys. Of course the first time I connect to a machine it’s going to be untrusted, but who cares? I’m using SSH to ensure others can’t sniff my traffic.

I don’t really care if a site is who they say they are, I’m the one connecting to the site, if the site does what I expect, they are serving their purpose. The only thing I use SSH/HTTPS for is to make sure that whatever communication between me and the site can’t be snooped. A CA allows a third party to snoop that traffic, and I have no indication they are doing it.

Eh, they do want to maximize profits, but this is more about fighting back against the EU basically making their business model illegal not making their service worse in favor of profits.

That’s where the SSH analogy comes from. On the initial connection you get the signature of the web-site you are trying to visit and your browser trusts it from then on. If something changes later, then the scary warning comes up.

There is no way a user can know that their traffic hasn’t been man-in-the-middled by a compromised CA either. And why is it “disastrous” to trust a website after you have cryptographically verified its the same website you visited before? It would present the same public/private key pair that you already trust.