Here’s a more representative image.

1. Three buttons at the top, just like Firefox:
   • tabs
   • synced
   • incognito
2. Inactive tabs, just like Firefox (possibly better)
3. Tabs themselves (FF is missing groups on mobile)

The article is fine IMO, but upon further reflection, you’re right that OpenAI doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt. I’ve amended my opinion.

Something OP conveniently fails to point out is that in China, online ID verification is already mandatory. It just requires feeding your private details into social media sites manually.

Lao Dongyan (劳东燕), an outspoken law professor at Tsinghua University, questioned the government’s commitment to personal information protection by pointing out that the country’s billion plus internet users had already been obligated to surrender their personal information to hundreds of sites and apps as a condition of use. There is little hope of protecting this information, she said, if the bulk of it has already been relinquished to private interests.

So unlike US laws that will undeniably worsen privacy, this is a step sideways.

I wish. Elon Musk was inspired by WeChat, and the US has already started sending undesirables to faraway labor camps. Praise of the Taliban has been… Not uncommon in conservative circles as far back as 2021, and there’s nothing unusual about the current administration copping CCP rules while pretending to oppose them.

It’s just a paid online backup, although nothing else (like whether it’ll leave a free tier) is really confirmed now.

Other discussion about this here: https://lemmy.world/post/30856057

That is sneaky. I might need to give that a shot… Although I wonder if it’ll be okay with whatever VPN I sign onto first

I imagine they might care because advertisements are their source of revenue on that platform, which I believe loses money regardless. They’re also getting increasingly adamant about breaking people’s ad blockers.

It also appears to me that every combination of functional use requires some form of identification:

• If you’re logged out, they’re okay with you browsing from an identifiable home IP address.
• If you’re on a VPN, they’re okay with showing your videos if you log in so they can track your viewing habits.
• If you’re on a VPN and make a new account, they want your phone number so they can tie your identity to an actual human being.

It might be a bit paranoid, but these factors combined suggest that Google does not want us to watch videos without providing some form of (inferrable) personal identification. And if Google can’t get what it wants, specifically data and ad revenue, they might be very willing to terminate an account that’s draining their coffers.

I’m personally just not that excited about needing a YouTube account to be signed in, in order to view/download videos. I imagine they wouldn’t take too kindly to that if they caught me. My existing account kind of matters, and apparently now you need a phone number to register a new one

With or without cookies?

I’ve recently been told to sign in when trying to access YouTube videos not just on a VPN, but now at my own residential location

@Hotznplotzn@lemmy.sdf.org Are you still pondering this question? Since I asked, you had enough time to post at least six more articles complaining about China and one more complaining about Russia

You should have looked at my comment history before making a fool of yourself.

Hotznplotzn is not a “good shill” for being on your side. They mix decent sources with abominably inaccurate and pro-surveillance ones.

Israel demanded data related to nearly 700 push notifications as part of a single request.

Rookie numbers IMO. But why “nearly 700” - did Israel already know the quantity of notifications, or was that a number they arrived at with Apple’s help?

according to the data, the U.S. made 99 requests for push token data related to 345 different push tokens, and received data in response to 65 of the requests between July and December 2023. The U.K. made 123 requests, about 128 tokens, and received data in response to 111…

These raw numbers are smaller but, based on my relative knowledge, scarier. I believe **tokens don’t represent single notifications, they represent all notifications to a single app on your phone **.

So the US is asking for 3-4 apps’ worth of notification data per request (person?), and get their way about two-thirds of the time. And I’d assume one token worth of data could contain hundreds, thousands, of notifications.

There’s only one app I know about that only uses push notifications to alert apps of incoming messages (without injecting the notification content into the push notification), and that’s Signal…

I believe so, based on another article I read

Serious question, Hotznplotzn: Are you against digital currencies in general because you don’t want governments to track people’s financial transactions, or are you just trying to remind people that Russia is still bad?

I guess I’ll ask you the same question I ask Putinists: Do you actually have a problem with propagandists? You get to see Hotznplotzn’s profile too. If you think there’s a different conclusion, a rational person would draw from it, be my guest in elaborate.

It’s also a very funny you would accuse me of being a Putin shill.

I think so.

Some browsers for Android have blocked the abusive JavaScript in trackers. DuckDuckGo, for instance, was already blocking domains and IP addresses associated with the trackers, preventing the browser from sending any identifiers to Meta. The browser also blocked most of the domains associated with Yandex Metrica. After the researchers notified DuckDuckGo of the incomplete blacklist, developers added the missing addresses.

So are Meta’s ties to the US and the MAGA regime.

But for some reason, Hotznplotzn appears more interested in promoting an America First form of nationalism than privacy advocacy, because that interest in privacy evaporates when American entities do it.

Interesting you added “Russia” to the title, but couldn’t be bothered to name the US as another surveillance state.

If I didn’t know better, I’d say you didn’t care about privacy at all, and were only stoking nationalistic fears.

OP’s post history demonstrates an interest in only one thing. As one example, look at the way they edited this article’s title.

Original title: “…involving Meta and Yandex…”

This post: “…involving Meta and Russia’s Yandex…”

I continue to wonder if OP is interested in privacy, or is simply upset at the Russianness of this particular thing.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think this has anything to do with archive.today:

Incidentally, anyone who pays for the paid media content must also expect for user data to go to Russia:

«Until recently, Ringier sent - thanks to these cookies - the IP addresses of “Blick” readers…

This has to do with a non-Russian company inadvertently adding trackers that linked back to a Russian website. There is no inherent danger of archive.today collecting cookies from other websites if you browse to it.

If browsing to archive links is concerning, especially if it’s the only available option, I would generally recommend a VPN, but ironically, VPNs seem to trigger CloudFlare (aka non-Russian) issues that prevent me from viewing media archived on this site