Protests against tourism have increased in frequency and size as tourist arrivals to popular destinations meet, and in some places surpass, pre-pandemic levels.
The protesters — angry about the city's long-standing problems with overtourism — also used tape to block hotel entrances and sidewalk cafes in Barceloneta.
Following protests throughout Spain in 2024, tourist arrivals increased 4.1% in the first seven months of 2025, according to its National Statistics Institute.
And it's going up still, despite it being an issue before this year. It's interesting that there's still an increase despite the pushback.
That specific protest was on La Rambla, which has been completely blighted by unconstrained tourism and which has had continuing problems with young male drunk tourists harassing locals, loudly partying all night, preventing the neighbors from sleeping, and generally behaving like arseholes. I go to Barcelona frequently and as long you're not being a complete skidmark, the vast majority of locals don't mind. As a matter of principle, I never use AirBnB.
The bigger source of protests in Barcelona was the phenomenon of scumbag landlords evicting local people and then hiring out the places on AirBnB. That became a big local political issue. Whole neighborhoods were being strip-mined in that way.
That's what's being reported. Tourisme to USA is down with 8% and everywhere else in the world it's going up. Europe is breaking records this year.
Then you have conferences and conventions that moved out of the USA. Lots of anecdotes of an empty Vegas strip, guides in cities cutting back, airports not that busy anymore, etc in part because Americans can afford less, places for greedy/private equity and foreigners staying away more.
Hmm... Maybe, just maybe, the problem is not the tourists, but ever increasing rent?
I remember the first years of Airbnb - met a ton of lovely hosts, lived in their abodes with them in the next room. BnB alike. Now, Airbnb provides "hotels" which are in direct competition with long term rentals.
The difference is that tourists are not a somehow disadvantaged group. My livelihood isn't endangered because I can't go to a tourist spot in Spain somewhere without being heckled (though, when I actually was in Spain, everyone was nice, but Madrid isn't that much of a tourist spot compared to others).
Also, in some cases, it isn't "the rich" – I too love to point out the issues they cause – but sometimes, it's just ordinary people hoping to make a quick buck buying up property to rent it out on AirBNB. Yes, it's also rich foreigners getting property everywhere for themselves, which is a problem. But "the rich" don't bother with AirBNB, they just build hotels, and these normally don't compete with normal housing.
Because they vow to be rich too. If you wish away someone else's Lamborgini, you'll also have to give up your own dreams of owning a Lamborgini (Kit cars are better, but would be hard to pull off with the modern no right to repair mentality).
It supports the thesis that Lumo is not open source in many common sense ways that most people would expect when a model claims it is open source. So in that sense, it does though.
In the 1 September update they state they found that web client and a mobile client as well, but not the API (I guess) containing the system prompt and the actual routing to the models.
TLDR: Apps are open, models are open weight but you don't know which one you get, and they have not yet disclosed any tweaks they may have made (although for me, it never sounded like they actually tweak the models all too much)
It get worse, and the model weights is a bit inaccurate with the Sept update:
The only open source code we have found is for the Lumo mobile and web apps. Proton calling the Lumo AI assistant open source based on that is a bit like Microsoft calling Windows open source just because there's a github repository for Windows Terminal.
The models listed on Lumo's privacy policy page are "Nemo, OpenHands 32B, OLMO 2 32B, and Mistral Small 3". OpenHands is a QWEN fine-tune, and Nemo and Mistral Small are both Mistral models. Since Proton has open-sourced neither the Lumo system prompt nor the mysterious routing methods that decide which model will handle your query, you never know what you are going to get.
So if the server isn't open source, and the server does all the work, this system is simply not Open Source.
Prominent women including cultural figures, politicians and campaigners have signed a letter criticising rightwing attempts to link sexual violence in Britain to asylum seekers.
Signatories include the musicians Paloma Faith, Charlotte Church and Anoushka Shankar as well as Labour, Green and independent MPs including Kim Johnson, Ellie Chowns, Diane Abbott and Zarah Sultana.
"We reject the far right’s racist lies about ‘protecting’ women and girls. They are not defenders of women – they exploit violence against women to fuel hate and division,” the letter says.
The open letter, titled Women Against the Far Right, follows a surge in protests outside accommodation housing asylum seekers and far-right attempts to exploit a number of cases of alleged sexual crimes involving asylum seekers.
Signed by; Leftist women from good neighbourhoods.
Signatories include the musicians Paloma Faith, Charlotte Church and Anoushka Shankar as well as Labour, Green and independent MPs including Kim Johnson, Ellie Chowns, Diane Abbott and Zarah Sultana.
So you believe the world is a monoculture? That the entire world shares the same views of sex and gender relations, the same crime statistics everywhere, the same milquetoast liberal mindsets are held across all lands...
...and saying otherwise is "prejudice".
Or basically you think the studies are wrong, and that the "behavioural barriers" mentioned in those studies are just a product of Westerns judging the crimes too harshly:
All issues are class issues, and they only become subject to rightwing populism when ruling leftist elites CHOOSE to disconnect from working class realities in favour of elitism and denial.
Your prejudice is the erasure of all cultural and economic differences. That's the prejudice you're practicing.
(1) Background: Sexual violence (SV) is a major public health problem, with negative socio-economic, physical, mental, sexual, and reproductive health consequences. Migrants, applicants for international protection, and refugees (MARs) are ...
You are clearly defending a prejudice viewpoint. Go on with your bad self, or what the fuck ever. But you can right fuck off with putting words in my mouth to justify your bullshit.
Just so we're clear, those are all your words, your arguments, your bullshit.
Now you're playing rehortorical games rather than responding with an argument.
That's rich coming from someone who's literally spewing xenophobic and politically tribal stereotypes about "good neighborhoods" and "left wing elites" in response to a simple objection to racist demagoguery.
Your studies demonstrate the fact that immigrants are much more likely to be the VICTIMS of sexual violence than native born people, which does NOT justify the "immigrants are coming to rape our women" hate speech that the women in the article are objecting to.
You've just thrown RACE into the conversation here, I said it was cultural and socioeconomic.
How are studies tribalism? Also I'm a leftist, I'm just also aware there are out of touch leftwing elites (writing denialist letters in this case).
Your studies demonstrate the fact that immigrants are much more likely to be the VICTIMS of sexual violence than native born people
No one said otherwise! Sorry, what's your argument? That it doesn't count as rape if immigrant men rape immigrant women? That's disgusting dude.
No asshole, of course that still counts as rape. Of course that's part of the higher amounts of SA and SV in those communities. I don't know why you needed to be shown studies to admit that.
Of course leftist elites aren't going to recognize that, and are going to try to pretend it's not true - like you were doing.
I take it you're no longer claiming it's "just prejudice" to point this stuff out? That you see a problem with not addressing increased rape stats now - and that not addressing and contextualizing gives the far right something to gripe about?
At least admit that much. I'm so sick of leftwingers denying problems. It's a politics of willful blindness and denialism sometimes. Easy to do for professionals at the top end of town.
Your studies demonstrate the fact that immigrants are much more likely to be the VICTIMS of sexual violence than native born people
No one said otherwise! Sorry, what's your argument? That it doesn't count as rape if immigrant men rape immigrant women? That's disgusting dude.
No, that's asinine. My point is that the anti-immigant rhetoric has nothing to do with protecting immigrants from being raped and everything to do with falsely portraying immigrant men as inherently likely to commit rape.
No asshole, of course that still counts as rape
I didn't say or even imply anything to the contrary. You can pack away your weird strawman now.
Of course that's part of the higher amounts of SA and SV in those communities.
Immigrant women being victims ≠ immigrant men being the perpetrators. To imply that immigration leads to rape is like implying that black people existing leads to killer cops.
I don't know why you needed to be shown studies to admit that
I didn't. In fact, I never suggested otherwise, see above.
Of course leftist elites aren't going to recognize that, and are going to try to pretend it's not true - like you were doing.
Again, that's not what's happening here.
The “leftist elites" are objecting to demagogues exploiting the very real problem of sexual violence against women (of which none of them nor I have denied that immigrant women are disproportionately the victims) as a way to further demonize and persecute immigrants.
I take it you're no longer claiming it's "just prejudice" to point this stuff out
Prejudice, conflating victims and perpetrators, or both. Take your pick.
That you see a problem with not addressing increased rape stats now
Nobody's arguing for doing that.
not addressing and contextualizing gives the far right something to gripe about?
That's the POINT: the far right are putting it in a false context for their own disinformation campaigns and you're doing something similar for different reasons.
Meanwhile, the "leftist elites" are simply saying that demonizing and scapegoating immigrants doesn't help any victims and is MUCH more likely to cause MORE immigrants to be assaulted by native born people who are taught to dehumanize them.
I'm so sick of leftwingers denying problems.
Saying that the fascists are blaming the wrong people is not denying that there are problems.
It's a politics of willful blindness and denialism
Nobody's denying anything. At least none of the people you're accusing of it are.
I don't think you being reactionary to a far-right whose not present here, or the letter writers trying to preach to the far-right from a "corrective left" perspective of professionals in the top end of town works.
It's hot air. The far-right aren't going to read the edicts past down from on high and see the error of their ways. It's a totally pipe dream leftism that assumes "being a scold" does anything but push people right.
I mean take yourself - you couldn't even handle my original comment pointing that out. Look at all the time we've wasted here just because you had an "I've detected prejudice" error.
This is just all the stuff the left gets wrong, that feeds into the far-right populism. We need an alternative ti being scolds.
I don't think you being reactionary to a far-right whose not present here, or the letter writers trying to preach to the far-right from a "corrective left" perspective of professionals in the top end of town works.
Good thing that none of that is happening, then.
It's hot air
Back to the self-description, I see.
The far-right aren't going to read the edicts past down from on high and see the error of their ways
Public figures tend to react to media pressure and other public figures taking a public stand tends to create such pressure. This is politics 101 stuff.
It's a totally pipe dream leftism that assumes "being a scold" does anything but push people right.
So what do you suggest, then? Never speaking up about harmful lies and the suffering they cause? Because that's DEFINITELY not going to convince anyone.
I mean take yourself - you couldn't even handle my original comment pointing that out.
Again with the ridiculous strawmen. You were wrong and I pointed it out. The only one unable to "handle" anything seems to be yourself.
Look at all the time we've wasted here just because you had an "I've detected prejudice" error.
Again, not the case. It doesn't say anything good about your point that you need to keep insisting on two or three strawmen to make it.
This is just all the stuff the left gets wrong, that feeds into the far-right populism. We need an alternative ti being scolds
Yeah, right. Telling them that they're harming people forces them to double down because that's how interpersonal communication works 🙄
You're invoking this comic in spite of pretending to be a leftist yourself:
Oh please, you're the one claiming it's prejudice to call out wealthy leftists for being so far removed from the situation that they don't even know rapes are happening in these communities.
Your defense of ivory towers of wealth, lifestyle disconnection and intellectual privilege is far more fascist aligned than anything I've said.
Hence your whole "anyone who disagrees with me must be MAGA" stance here...
...and again, it's an discourse where studies show that negative reinforcement is far less effective than positive reinforcement. Your line of thinking on these issues actually contributes to the polarisation and prolonging of them (so is pro-rape). As was your original denying there was any issue (saying it was just prejudice).
You just keep pushing bad answers... And I keep having to explain to you what the actual studies say (be they how negative discourse creates polarisation, or the very fact that rapes are happening).
You need to learn political nuance. Get off tiktok or whatever's got you so ideological boxed in.
But yeah, I'm done with you, and your reactionary polarisations. I hate you and we're on the "same side" - I can't imagine you're doing anything out there worthwhile. I just hope people like you can educate yourselves so I don't have to. Good luck.
I don't know where to even BEGIN adequately refuting that whole wall of nonsense, so I won't waste any more time on you to do so. Have the day you deserve.
"Results: Evidence shows that SV is highly frequent in MARs in Europe, yet comparison with other groups is still difficult. Methodologically and ethically sound representative studies comparing between populations are still lacking."
You are just linking studies because you see some numbers and you think it supports the story in your head. These people are aware of the nuances and difficulties of confounders and they don't make any of the baseless claims you are making. All they are saying is "there is high incidence of rape among immigrant females and we should help them by improving reception practices". They even say any over reaching conclusions are wrong. And yet here you are, undermining the work of these authors by fabricating conclusions that don't exist in the papers. I suspect you don't even read the conclusion, or anything beyond the title. And if you are, then you are just discussing in bad faith. In any case you don't seem to be here for a genuine scientific discussion so don't try to use science to support your claims, it feels insincere.
Yes, what's more sex crimes tend to be "crimes of opportunity" - or to frame that idea differently - "crimes of circumstance".... And those circumstances tend to be created by a lack of money, lack of education, and an abdication of responsibility from those in charge.
That the letter writing is a form of elite leftist denialism of the issues.
That it's essentially covering over that there are issues to be discussed here, in favour of going after "the right" and trying to scold ones enemies rather than actually look into the issues (which I'm claiming are cultural and economic).
You know, sometimes it's better to conceed than it is to alienate and deny.
Hilarious. They actually expect the ideology of pedophiles and rapists to listen to them.
Hahahaha good god.
Edit: Conservatives worldwide are rapists, pedophiles, and imbeciles. Just recently. Japan is having a right wing moron resurgence because of misinformation.
Elite leftists who want to disconnect themselves from the complex issues and incompatibilities of cultural exchange are just fueling the problem, and allowing right wing populists to make points.
Fact is that different regions have different gender relations, and different problems because of that, and we need to understand that.
American here under fascism and seeing no improvement anytime soon here.
From me to you, spare me the self righteousness.
FYI: you literally just supported my point. I am sure Israel will take into consideration what they are doing to the Thai women. Just like they are taking into consideration the Palestinians right to live.
Are there real concerns? Yes, some. Are there tons of misinformation campaigns actively trying to push anti-immigrant narratives and fake statistics to fearmonger and activate conservatives? Absolutely.
And a lot of those concerns will get worse by poverty and inequality but the right wing policies usually make that worse while blame it on the migrants. Rinse and repeat.
That's still some xenophobic nonsense that potentially punishes men for losing their families, not to mention is some dystopian "guilty with no opportunity to be proven innocent" assholery.
they have the statistics and data to back them up.
Then again, 69% of statistics are made up on the spot or deliberately skewed and that goes double any time governments want to justify abusing foreigners.
I know right? A culture that engaged in eugenics and genocide backed by statistics and data yesterday just happens to have statistics and data to back their regrettably cruel but totally pragmatic policy today.
Like damn I'm sure dictators have legitimate data that shows dissidents threaten their power. Good evidence is like a thought jammer.
A culture that engaged in eugenics and genocide backed by statistics and data yesterday just happens to have statistics and data to back their regrettably cruel but totally pragmatic policy today.
Setting aside the fact that I have no idea what specifically "a culture" refers to... this "women are afraid of men because of statistics" thing isn't limited to Canada.
She doesn't give a shit about true evils in the world, not about some malific dark figure wreaking death on innocence to make "inferior" people bow in fear. She only cares about making the lives of young people born different to her strict worldview as abysmal and horrible as possible. She should read this book about a boy born different to his peers who embraces it and eventually overthrows true evil and terror... oh wait.
In the book, many of those wacky characters "grow out of it".
Modern conservatism is just fascism, but with "they will grow out of it eventually" mentality. Crustaceans evolve into crabs, conservatives evolve into Hitlers.
Nearly 40 years after breaking off Antarctica, a colossal iceberg ranked among the oldest and largest ever recorded is finally crumbling apart in warmer waters, and could disappear within weeks.
Earlier this year, the “megaberg” known as A23a weighed a little under a trillion tonnes and was more than twice the size of Greater London, a behemoth unrivalled at the time.
The gigantic slab of frozen freshwater was so large it even briefly threatened penguin feeding grounds on a remote island in the South Atlantic Ocean, but ended up moving on.
It is now less than half its original size, but still a hefty 1,770 sq km (683 sq miles) and 60km (37 miles) at its widest point, according to AFP analysis of satellite images by the EU Earth observation monitor Copernicus.
That caught me eye too. The article says a bit more about it:
“I’d say it’s very much on its way out … it’s basically rotting underneath. The water is way too warm for it to maintain. It’s constantly melting,” he said.
“I expect that to continue in the coming weeks, and expect it won’t be really identifiable within a few weeks.”
The way I interpret that is that it will have broken up enough that it would no longer be identifiable as the single iceberg A23a, but there would still be lots of its ice floating around.
Wow, this is really disappointing. I thought A23a had what it took to last. I suppose in the end the fame and the pressure to live up to public expectations will break up even the strongest bonds.
No doubt the paparazzi following the 'berg around, shooting photos of every dip and rise, and the temptations found in warmer waters led to this demise.
I tried to find the current location of the iceberg and was met with a sad reminder of how much data the U.S. government contributes. Basically, all the location updates came from NOAA, and those haven’t been updated since March.
Ciao, questo pomeriggio è stato fatto un aggiornamento a NodeBB 4.5.1 passando prima dalla 4.5.0. Mi sembra funzioni tutto ma se riscontrate errori o problemi scrivetemi pure. Non allego i changelog perché stavolta sono luuuuuuuuuuuunghi ma li trovate su
Ciao, questo pomeriggio è stato fatto un aggiornamento a NodeBB 4.5.1 passando prima dalla 4.5.0.
Mi sembra funzioni tutto ma se riscontrate errori o problemi scrivetemi pure.
Non allego i changelog perché stavolta sono luuuuuuuuuuuunghi ma li trovate su GitHub:
Release build (patch) of NodeBB @ 2025-09-04T16:02:47.165Z
v4.5.1 (2025-09-04)
New Features
use _variables.scss overrides from acp in custom skins and bootswatch skins as well (0c48e0e)
Bug Fixes...
The U.S. military on Tuesday struck a drug boat from Venezuela, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, as tensions spike between the Trump administration and the Venezuelan government.
I note the details of this incident are sparse, per the article, yet CBS utterly fails to use the word alleged at all. This is a 'drug boat' not an 'alleged drug boat,' nor a 'boat allegedly smuggling drugs.' Did they even ask what proof the military had before blowing up this 'drug boat?'
Is the USA now blowing up any boat at sea that they feel is a drug boat? Isn't the norm to have the Coast Guard intercept such boats board them, gather evidence, and make arrests? I guess this is the new war on drugs.
Yes. These are normally handled by the Coast Guard. There's a reason the Coast Guard vessels are armed. They can more than handle anything a cartel drug boat is carrying. They're heavily armed enough that most intercepted vessels surrender without a fight. Actually taking fire is extraordinarily rare.
There is absolutely zero reason to waste US Navy vessels on this. It appears Trump just blew up a random boat that could have easily been intercepted. Even assuming it is a drug boat, this attack is completely detrimental to fighting the drug trade. If you intercept the vessel, you can interrogate the crew, gather evidence from the vessel, and help crack the cartel network they are a part of. But you can't do any of that with a corpse-filled wreck on the bottom of the ocean.
Mayor Koch has stated that hate and rancor should be removed from our hearts. I do not think so. I want to hate these muggers and murderers.. They should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes. They must serve as examples so that others will think long and hard before committing a crime or an act of violence. Yes, Mayor Koch, I want to hate these murderers and I always will. I am not looking to psychoanalyze or understand them, I am looking to punish them. If the punishment is strong, the attacks on innocent people will stop. - Donald Trump
It wasn't until 2002 that the five men were exonerated after convicted rapist and murderer Matias Reyes confessed to the crime. Reyes' DNA matched the sample found on Meili.
Here is another example of his love of killing people. Did you know that since 1976, only 16 people have been executed by the federal government. Two in 2001. One in 2003. The other 13 were executed in 2020 and 2021 when then President Trump learned he could expedite their executions.
Expect a lot more blood from this man now that he can and is ordering the military to wantonly spill it.
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
This isn't the 80s, I don't think people are buying into the war on drugs facade masking imperialism as much as they used to. Drugs flow along the pacific. Venezuela is small fries for drug trafficking. This is absolutely reasserting imperial interest in Latin America and Venezuela being the most prominent non-US aligned country at the moment in Latin America. If the US acts stupid and tries to false flag themselves into a regime change invasion, it'll be more of a clusterfuck than Afghanistan. No doubt in my mind nonsense in Venezuela would spark something in Colombia and I doubt Brazil would want the US to win either
It wouldn't push Venezuelans to not want whoever reforms them once the U.S. scuffle is over to not join BRICS as well, and move away from the U.S. dollar. They already wanted in now if I remember, but Brazil vetoed it.
Whatever opposition there was against Maduro, the US is ruining it for them. Instead Venezuela gets a clear view of the regional existential threat, further motivation to modernize its military and build non-US aligned trade. They're shaping up to be, and getting help from the US in drumming up motivation, the Americas Iran but they can't be boogyman'ed as Muslims
Over the past decades power grids have undergone a transformation towards smaller and more intermittent generators – primarily in the form of wind and solar generators – as well as smal…
Moss Landing battery storage facility has repeatedly caught fire, which highlights another potentially major savings for grid operators, as the fallout of such events are instead borne by the operator of the battery, which for the DSGS would be the home owner.
Did I understand right that VPPs are just a way of grouping some generation and storage together in such a way that you can pretend it will act as a CCGT plant?
If so, surely this is papering over the challenge. A real solution will present all the information used to operate a "VPP" to the entire grid, and allow all the available resources to be managed by the grid.
Members of evangelical churches, a branch of Protestantism, are increasing. These believers say they are drawn by a more informal liturgy and the emphasis on community.
Better than nothing, and by far better than the nihilistic, hedonistic, consumerist pseudo-ideology the West currently spouses, but the man-worshipping and polytheistic nature of these Trinitarian religious groups is still something to be a little bit wary of.
Honestly, I don't know much about it, it might be one of those crazy American megachurch style nonsense religious groups and in that case, yeah, be double wary. 😔
As someone who has spent most of their life in the US South, evangelicalism has a dominionist pervasive quality that shuns cosmopolitan pluralism. More or less, as an ideology, it tries to take over all aspects of life, and does not respect a world where others are allowed to live their lives differently or free. Be wary, France.
The sub-flavors are important. Jainism, Wicca, Asatru, Evangelical, Catholic, etc... all have different world views, expectations etc... some are fairly benign, others are not.
Asatru is the one I liked as a child, when I discovered them on Yahoo! Directory They set the tone to understand the real nature of the Catholicism that was forced on me (by atheist parents, just "to fit in") and from there it was a breeze.
Well assuming you write off the secular flavors aka secular Judaism, and I've seen at least one secular Wiccan blog.
That said, a little magical thinking never hurt anyone so long as it's fairly confined. Also lots of folks just looking for community without going all in on dogma.
Religious people never cease to amaze me with their genocides, rampant racism, support for the latest power elite, indoctrination and violation of children, individuation of out-groups to oppose, torture of people with different sexual preferences, exploitation of people lacking education/mental well-being/financial means, de-prioritization of basic human rights against their "clergy"-given values.
Shall I list off the crimes and systemic injustices perpetrated by atheists, or secular systems? Because the capacity to do great evil is not a trait exclusive to the religious.
I don't deny that religious systems often facilitate the grave injustices that you list, but to lay equal blame across all religions and religious people is foolish because it fails to get at the true problem. People abusing their power would be a problem even if there were no religious people in the world at all.
And to me, any ideology that reaches the point in which it has to challenge reason to survive is a religion just the same, and that would easily include nazism, stalinism and late-stage capitalism.
The problem is a beleif system not grounded in reality under the control of random con men that is protected by the law so they don't have to pay taxes or cooperate with police investigations.
Because you think that the chakra-healing yoga teacher selling supplements, taking advantage of people who are desperate to get better or to look better and who don't know better, is in any way morally or ethically superior to any member of an organized religion?
She is a priest like all the others in my book. Behaving exactly the same way.
You decided that you didn't like people attacking orginized religon and then compared it to something that is nowhere near as harmful because you assumed I am ok with all other instances of cult behavior to feel like the victim.
That's whataboutism.
And to be honest, Idk if you can even self reflect for long enough to see that
You need to snap out of this mentality that religion is healthy, it has wormed its way deep into your core.
Israel has begun mobilizing some 60,000 reservists to take part in its planned occupation of Gaza City, the army confirmed Tuesday, signaling a major escalation in the genocidal war now in its 23rd month, Anadolu reports.
The military said the reservists will be issued weapons, personal gear and full tactical equipment, with units undergoing drills in urban and open terrain combat “to boost readiness for upcoming missions.”
Israeli daily Maariv said the mobilization would see reservists undergo three to four days of training before some are reassigned to replace regular troops stationed on the northern front.
The step follows Friday’s declaration of Gaza City as a “dangerous combat zone,” accompanied by heavy bombardment and demolitions that have already caused mass civilian casualties and widespread destruction. Gaza’s Government Media Office has accused the army of deploying explosive-laden robots and adopting a “scorched earth” strategy.
I don't live there so I never really knew the extent of Israeli depravity until recent events pulled back the veil for me. What I've read and seen in the last year has convinced me that entire society is fucked beyond redemption and collectively deserve the title "Nazi". Maybe they were just as shitty 50 years ago, I think that a lot of people myself included are learning a lot about Israel recently.
the only difference is the lack of a german language.
And the lack of anti-semitism
And the boundedness of their expansionism
And many other differences.
Expand your fucking vocabulary, rather than reaching for the only genocidal analogue you can think of. There has been more than one genocide in history, and you do dishonour to the victims of any one by using its name to describe something different.
They want to remove Gaza and sell homes to other zionists.
Stop. just … grow the fuck up. It’s almost like you’re either defending zionists or nazis, I can’t tell which. Done with you.
There are TONS of genocides happening today. Not all are by nazis. I never said that. Two things can be true at once… and zionism’s growth and foothold on the semitic people of Palestine is a ww1/ww2 era invention. You know. When those silly nazis you seem to think don’t exist seemed to crop up.
I am defending the truth, and you're too committed to your untruth (whether mistake or lie) to accept that someone can do that while otherwise sharing your beliefs.
They are GENOCIDING SEMITIC PEOPLE.
"Semitic people" is not a category that is used any more; it could refer to "speakers of Semitic languages" but is completely obsolete for referring to ethnicity. And besides, Zionism, or the current Israeli government's version of it, is not murdering Palestinians because they belong to the group of people once referred to as "Semitic" because that would include all Arabs and all Jews as well as several other people. Genociding people who belong to a certain category doesn't mean you're anti- that category. For a trivial example, they are genociding human beings - does that mean they are anti-human? Obviously not.
So, if anti-semitism does not refer to hatred for the entire group of "Semitic people", what does it refer to? Well, it has some history being used more or less in the way you apparently believe it still is used, but in 1879 a chap called Wilhelm Marr wrote a pamphlet in which he used Semitismus interchangeably with Judentum, and Antisemitismus as a synonym for Judenhaß - Jew-hatred. That is what it has meant since.
There is only one reason I can think of beyond blinkered stubbornness that you could possibly want to associate the Nazis and antisemitism with the Israeli government, and that is out of some pathetic sense of irony, that it is somehow poetic that the Jews have become what befell them in the early 20th century. That is poetic, but poetry isn't truth, and disregarding the suffering of Jews at the hands of the real Nazis by calling what Israel now commits "Nazism" belies a disregard for Jews as a whole which is at best distasteful and at worst abhorrent.
You are letting yourself speak in a prejudiced way because of your opposition to the genocide that Israel is carrying out. How can you say "grow up" when you let that happen? No population deserves to be murdered the way Israel is murdering Palestinians - but no population deserves to have its past suffering mocked in the way you mock the suffering of Jews by calling Israel Nazis.
Prejudiced, discriminatory, hostile or opposed politically or religiously against ethnic or religious Jews or against Judaism
More information on usage can be found here but even if you want to use the non-standard sense of the word, it is: * clearly wrong, because Zionism privileges one group it should be prejudiced against if it were anti-semitic in this sense; and * clearly not the anti-semitism of the Nazis - so in no way does this make Zionism a form of Nazism, which is what we were talking about.
Zionism relies on "othering" Jews, making them feel unsafe in their home countries. They literally sterilized African Jews in the pursuit of their colonial vision.
As for Nazism, I'm not arguing there, it is technically different. But insofar as people think about Nazis as evil, it's a useful word in these conversations.
I agree it's useful to highlight the parallels between what the Israeli government does now and what was done to the Jewish population by the Nazis, but equating the two is not useful, is actively harmful, and extremely offensive. That's what I objected to above.
Zionism relies on “othering” Jews, making them feel unsafe in their home countries.
You can just as well say that all nationalist projects rely on "othering" in the sense of dividing whatever group is deemed "us" from everyone else. But of course, nobody normally calls this "othering", because it explicitly makes the in-group us not other than us. It would be wholly wrong to say that Zionist Jews characterise Jews as other than us, so I don't see how this is "othering" in any way that makes sense. They may other particular subgroups, but that is simply not a basis for describing the process as "othering Jews" because Jewishness is not the axis along which the division is being made; rather it is the axis of the subgroup. Scots might other the English, and this would not be a basis on which to accuse Scots of anti-British prejudice.
Othering alone is in any case not prejudice; it is merely something that often precedes it.
They literally sterilized African Jews in the pursuit of their colonial vision.
That would be a subgroup of Jews, not Jews as a whole. You wouldn't call it homophobia to bully Michael who happens to be gay if you don't bully other gay people.
The Germans are one to speak. Any country that’s still actively supporting Israel can never convince me that they’re better than Russia. If Gaza falls, so should Ukraine and the rest of Europe. I don’t care about the fate of this continent. Let it be a bloody battlefield again. That’s the only way to learn these filthy colonizers a lesson,
That was a great read. Let's hope the author is right with most of it, especially the part where they predict an upcoming focus on teaching media/information literacy as a tool of societal resilience.
But someday after that, we’ll reach a point when the phrase “social media is all fake robo-crap” will be as common of knowledge as “cigarettes cause cancer” or “slot machines are a poor investment”. Adults can still smoke and slot, sure. But nobody in the developed world can say they weren’t warned of the risks.
The Guardian has visited three frontline hospitals to hear from women who say they have been left fearful of childbirth after more than 80 attacks on maternity units since Russia’s full-scale invasion
Are you claiming the 81 Russian attacks on maternity centers didn’t happen, or that they did and it just isn’t a big deal?
How incompetent would Russia need to be to “accidentally” attack 81 maternity centers? Unless you think Ukraine is just covered in maternity centers for some reason?
Please clearly state which part of this is untrue. Just saying “western propaganda” is a thought terminating cliche and you know it.
That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not Putin's fault. And if it was, he didn't mean it. And if he did, the Ukrainians deserved it.
Why don't you research that yourself, look for news sources that aren't western media or their "we're abso not western media, but still tout their narratives" lap dogs and you'll start seeing a wildly different story
Two great assumptions here; that I don’t already read “non-western news sources” and that any different narrative is somehow more true?
Just because Putin says he’s “liberating” Ukraine doesn’t make it any more true than when the Nazis said they were “liberating” Poland. Non-western sources have exactly as much reason to lie to you as western sources do, and it’s kinda up to you to figure that out instead of slavishly consuming state media but it’s a different state so it must be more gooder!
Instead of disgustingly mocking victims of war crimes and revelling in human tragedy, just go away and be one of Putin's useful idiots with the other tankies in one of your tankie communities.
I swear to God they all must have lead poisoning or something. Had one try to explain to me how China is more democratic then Western Countries and that the working class rules in China.
I'd say the country where the working class has the most control is France. Their proletariat is 100% willing to use violence to get their way, and the politicians know it.
Even if "Western Propaganda" is saying he's eating babies, not sure why your so eager to come here and defend Putin, like his honor needs to be protected. lol
To some people "seeing through western propaganda" means deciding what to believe by whatever the opposite of western forces want
Hate to break it to you but that's not thinking for yourself, in fact it takes no more self reflection and thought than it would to just blindly believe it all
Next Sosyal is a new social media platform with close ties to the Turkish ruling party, that is based on Mastodon but does not federate
A shuffle in the places, forums and sites to talk about #activitypub, with new owners for forum SocialHub, the activitypub.rocks website now managed by the W3C SocialCG, and the new activitypub.space forum
Next Sosyal is a new Turkish social media platform that is based on Mastodon. The platform has not enabled federation, and is thus not accessible from the fediverse. Next Sosyal is endorsed by Turkish ruling party AKP, and president Erdogan recently made his first post on the platform. Erdoğan quoted a poem from a prominent Turkish poet, and posted “Are you ready?”, with the hashtag “We’re starting,” along with emojis of the Turkish flag, the Earth and a rocket.
Next Sosyal is developed by Selçuk Bayraktar, who owns military drone company Baykar and is the son-in-law of President Erdogan. The platform is branded as a “local and national” alternative to global platforms such as X and Facebook. Bayraktar describes the platform as a safer and cleaner space for constructive dialogue free from trolling, disinformation and Western platform algorithms.
The Nordic Monitor news site further reports: “Several ministries and public entities now maintain official Next Sosyal profiles. Staff in these offices report that social media guidance increasingly favors the platform. Press releases, bulletins and announcements are expected to appear on Next before being shared on global platforms. Some officials say internal memos suggested de-emphasizing X and Instagram entirely. In addition, some major corporations have reportedly started opening accounts on Next out of fear of government pressure.”
Bayraktar claims that the app now has over 1 million users. Since Next Sosyal is a slight reskin of Mastodon, it means that the same API also works. API calls to Next Sosyal on August 22nd showed an exact user count of 850.000, and as of September 2 the API claims a total of 1.100.000 accounts. Registering on the app requires a Turkish phone number, making it difficult for me to verify these numbers by looking at timeline activity, but the exact roundness of these numbers does raise some suspicions for me.
The platform was originally released without any reference to Mastodon’s source code. Mastodon is released under the AGPL license, which means that you can use, modify and distribute the software freely, as long as you publish the code under the same AGPL license. After some requests from the Mastodon organisation, Next Sosyal is now compliant with this, and explicitly mentions that “NSocial is an open source Mastodon-based social media platform developed by TEKNOFEST entrepreneurs.” on their About page.
We live in a world where authoritarian rulers seem to have a better grasp of current social media dynamics than many democratic leaders have. Both Trump and Erdogan understand the value of building a social media platform where they have a direct connection with their supporters, and can control message distribution. That both leaders use Mastodon for this, while democratic leadership shows little interest in building out their own social media distribution platforms on the open social web is painful.
In Other News
Last week I wrote about SocialHub, a forum to discuss ActivityPub, and how it fits into a larger understanding of the ‘substrate’ layer of the fediverse. One of the points I made is that the communication layer underneath the fediverse (meaning places to discuss and collaborate on ActivityPub, for example) is fairly decentralised. The positive effect is that this creates a distribution of power, nobody can control all the conversations that happen about ActivityPub. This also means that coordination is more difficult, as developers are spread out over multiple places. There has been quite some movement this week in this space of “what are the places to talk about ActivityPub”:
The direct cause for writing the article was SocialHub potentially shutting down. A new administrator has been found, workers cooperative Pavillion. The cooperative was hired by forum software Discourse to create the ActivityPub plugin for the forum.
Activitypub.rocks is the ‘official’ website for the ActivityPub protocol, but it has not been updated for almost five years. Christine Lemmer-Webber, one of the co-authors of ActivityPub, has decided to hand over the website to the SocialCG, the community group for ActivityPub that is part of the W3C. A new initiative to work on the website from the SocialCG is led by Johannes Ernst, who also organises the FediForum conferences.
Activitypub.space is a new forum to discuss ActivityPub, created by NodeBB developer Julian Lam.
Fediverse software updates:
A blog by the WordPress ActivityPub team with more details on their latest updates, with expanded moderation tooling and improvements under the hood.
Piefed now has a build-in discovery tool to find new communities to subscribe to.
Blogging platform WriteFreely has further fediverse integrations with their latest update: it now displays ‘likes’ on WriteFreely blog posts made on other platforms. Other platforms such as Mastodon will now also show a preview or summary of a WriteFreely post, in addition to a link.
LemmyBridge is a new browser extension that connects you to Lemmy discussions for any website you visit.
Pixelfed releases the ‘Stories’ feature on their Android app.
And an overview of all fediverse software updates of the week.
And some more links:
WeDistribute writes about the Client-to-Server part of ActivityPub, a part of the protocol that is rarely used, and how the Social Web Foundation is working on promoting its use.
A tutorial that explains how you can do podcasting with PeerTube.
FedInspect, a desktop application for analysing fediverse server configurations and features.
In Spain, dozens of ships carrying civilian activists and loaded with humanitarian aid departed Barcelona on Monday, bound for the Gaza Strip. The Global Sumud Flotilla is the largest attempt yet to challenge Israel’s blockade of Gaza. Swedish activist Greta Thunberg helped to organize the flotilla.
Greta Thunberg: “Israel are very clear about their genocidal intent. They want to erase the Palestinian nation. They want to take over the Gaza Strip. And if that doesn’t make people act, if that doesn’t make people go out of their couch and take action, fill the streets, get organized, then I don’t know what will.”
In Australia, peace activists held a nonviolent protest Monday blocking the entrance of Port Melbourne, demanding Australia suspend trade with Israel. Meanwhile, in Colorado, dozens of Jewish peace activists and allies rallied on Friday outside the Denver office of Senator Michael Bennet.
How that fat wino ever got close enough to a woman to be in a position to assault her in the fisrt place is the most puzzling question in this case. What a repugnant man...
Peru’s Congress has rejected a long-delayed proposal to create the Yavari Mirim Indigenous Reserve. That's a 1.17 million-hectare tract of Amazon rainforest on the Brazil border meant to protect five uncontacted tribes.
Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.
It's an email scam as old as the Nigerian prince asking for money: someone claiming they hacked your webcam and have recorded you in an act of self-pleasure. Unless you pay up, the video will be sent to friends and family. The whole thing's a lie, of course, but a new type of malware has made this form of sextortion a reality.
I have no doubt that the muslims would do the exact same thing, if they had the chance.
That's how religious genocide works. The religion doesn't matter, they all do it. It's how 'the largest fictional religion in the world' game works, and all religions have been playing it for thousands of years.
Not the best fictional religion. Not the kindest. The one with the most people and control.
I have no doubt that the muslims would do the exact same thing, if they had the chance.
This belief is a prerequisite to turning a blind eye to the Palestinian Genocide or perhaps it is simply the last defense people have for turning a blind eye. Is that you? Is that why you are behaving like a child on such a serious topic?
Shame on you for responding to a genocide only with laughably speculative handwaving about how in a wildly different situation Muslims who are victims of a genocide would commit genocide.
Freund wasn’t looking for a backdoor when he noticed SSH connections to his Debian testing system taking 500 milliseconds longer than usual. As a database engineer benchmarking PostgreSQL performance, he initially dismissed the anomaly. But the engineer’s curiosity persisted.
The backdoor’s technical sophistication was breathtaking. Hidden across multiple stages, from modified build scripts that only activated under specific conditions to obfuscated binary payloads concealed in test files, the attack hijacked SSH authentication through an intricate chain of library dependencies. When triggered, it would grant the attacker complete remote access to any targeted system, bypassing all authentication and leaving no trace in logs.
The backdoored versions 5.6.0 and 5.6.1 had been released in February and March 2024, infiltrating development versions of Fedora, Debian, openSUSE, and Arch Linux. Ubuntu’s upcoming 24.04 LTS release, which would have deployed to millions of production systems, was mere weeks away.
The technical backdoor was merely the final act of a three-year psychological operation that began not with code, but with studying a vulnerable human being.
Exhausted volunteers maintaining critical infrastructure alone. From personal experience with contributor burnout to AI-powered future threats, here’s why our digital foundation is crumbling.
A new working paper authored by three Stanford researchers, titled "Canaries in the Coal Mine? Six Facts about the Recent Employment Effects of Artificial Intelligence", claims that GenAI has significantly reduced employment opportunities for individ…
So the author's argument is that youth have just gone to gig work instead of traditional jobs. OK, maybe true, but first of all, this is not a good thing on its own either. And secondly, we have to consider why gig work even exists, aside from being a fresh new way to exploit workers and deny them the traditional protections of the labor market. Because there is a specific reason gig work exists right at this very transitional moment in the workforce, and I'll give you a spoiler: It exists because of AI.
AI is going to do the same thing to gig work that gig work has already done to traditional youth employment. It represents the transitional step from traditional human labor to full automation. That's part of the reason companies are using gig work in the first place. It makes it really easy to treat workers as instantly and transparently interchangable in an extremely efficient and flexible way. And they are going to start interchanging them not just with other gig workers, but AI drones -- self driving cars, drones, and other machine infrastructure as it gets developed and matures. The flexibility allows them to absorb the impact of any issues with the technology by instantly falling back to more "human gigs" when needed, but whenever the technology becomes successful, the human jobs will just instantly evaporate as quickly as the technology can roll out, and not a single thought will ever be spared for the millions of gig working humans waiting for their phone to buzz for the next gig that will never come while looking at bills that are never going to get paid. That's literally the goal that gig work exists to enable, it's fundamentally designed for the AI endgame, it's inevitably going to leave millions of people suddenly and quietly unemployed and unemployable without warning or even any official notification when it's happening, and it's coming sooner than we think.
So the author’s argument is that youth have just gone to gig work instead of traditional jobs. OK, maybe true, but first of all, this is not a good thing on its own either. And secondly, we have to consider why gig work even exists, aside from being a fresh new way to exploit workers and deny them the traditional protections of the labor market. Because there is a specific reason gig work exists right at this very transitional moment in the workforce, and I’ll give you a spoiler: It exists because of AI.
Considering the author is possibly the most relevant scholar on (against?) platform work, I'm quite sure he would agree with you. The article implies that AI is deskilling and displacing workers and that's intrinsically a bad thing.
And secondly, we have to consider why gig work even exists, aside from being a fresh new way to exploit workers and deny them the traditional protections of the labor market. Because there is a specific reason gig work exists right at this very transitional moment in the workforce, and I’ll give you a spoiler: It exists because of AI.
Wrong, gig work existed way before the advent of AI, even before the advent of Internet and PC. It was not uncommon that teenagers worked during the summer holidays to have money to go on holidays, to buy themself something or to pay for school or other activities. The problem is that for some people it is the only way to work, and this was happening way before companies started to use AI for everything.
You're understanding of "gig work" is comically outdated. You sound naive or trollish. "Jobs for teens" like fast food work, grocery clerking, and working at movie theaters have always been taken by people who need "real jobs" and not just teens looking for extra money. So you're wrong that these careers exclusively for kids to get pocket money ever existed, certainly not in living memory.
Secondly, OP isn't talking about working the carwash for the summer. He's talking about Uber and AirBNB. Maybe you heard of them? Over the last decade, they've caused massive disruption of the hotel and taxi industries by allowing thousands of unlicensed and unregulated "micro entrepreneurs" 🤮 to create a new economy of pay-per-task workers who end up owning all the physical assets (which rapidly deprecate in value) but none of the infrastructure or investments (which do not, or do so on much different schedules).
Houses being bought up for short term rentals has contributed to the housing crisis. Its caused economic harm to inner cities. It's a looking part of the polycrisis destroying the practical economy and the planet's livability. But yeah man, the real problem is lazy people just don't want real adult jobs, give me a fucking break.
I agree with most all of that, but shit jobs for teens were all teens in the day. We started in those shit jobs, and our coworkers were all peers. That's why so many middle-aged people don't get the modern paradigm. The modern world no longer reflects our youth, at all.
I worked at Lowe's for 5-months. But you're right. Most of the gig workers coming through were older than me. I'm 54. Imagine that.
There was no tech middleman taking in part of the profit while making every other part of the transaction a net negative for everyone else though. I do agree that AI might not have much to do with it though.
Let me connect a few dots for you that may be a key part of the Trump-Epstein drama and may even be what Trump has been trying to keep hidden in those files. I’…
Israeli leadership is treating Gaza like a war crime buffet at this point.
"I mean, if genocide's on the menu, why not sprinkle in a little murder-children-by-starvation and robot warfare? It's my cheat ~~day~~ year and a half, after all."
Maintaining finances carefully is crucial for running a successful business. In the business field, various operations will be held as day-to-day activities, and to meet all the needs of the daily activities, business finance is essential.
Maintaining finances carefully is crucial for running a successful business. In the business field, various operations will be held as day-to-day activities, and to meet all the needs of the daily activities, business finance is essential. This is the place where working capital management plays a major role.
Smart and effective management of working capital helps in controlling the overall business efficiencies, and it is the primary goal of it. Since working capital management is essential for every business, all business owners should be aware of its details. This blog gives all the details about working capital management. Continue to read and get valuable details about working capital management.
What is Working Capital Management?
Working capital management is the process of managing the assets and liabilities of the business funds by leading the business in a profitable way. This working capital management process is used to cover the day-to-day activities of the business, further investments, unexpected emergencies, etc. The illustration of the working capital formula is given as follows.
Working capital = Current assets of the business – Current liabilities of the business
The current assets of the business include the accounts receivable and current liabilities of the business include the accounts payable.
Some of the major components of working capital are mentioned below.
Accounts Receivable:The amount that owed to the business is referred to as accounts receivable. Taking effective measures on these unpaid amounts helps in the working capital management.
Accounts Payable:The amount that is to be paid by business to the suppliers is referred to as the accounts payable. Effective accounts payable management creates a great impact on the cash flow of the business.
Inventory Management:Effective management of inventory helps in increasing the working capital. The inventory includes the raw materials, processed materials, products to be sold, etc.
Effective Working Capital Management Strategies:
For effective working capital management, some strategies can be followed, and they are as follows.
Making Early Payments:Encouraging the clients to make early payments helps in enhanced working capital. If prompt payments are not received from the clients, then consider offering penalties for those who make late payments and reduce the time for credit notes.
Manage Your Inventory Effectively: Regular tracking of the inventory is essential for effective inventory management. The details, like high-demand products, which products are slow-moving, which products are there in stock for numerous days, should be tracked regularly to increase the working capital. To manage this inventory, the inventory management software can be used.
Meet the Business Liabilities:Consistently paying off your liabilities to vendors can improve your credibility and lead to extended credit options from them. Failing to make the payment easily damages the vendor relationship.
Safeguard From Fraudulent Activities:As fraudulent activities are increasing day by day, losing even a single rupee is a heavy loss for the business.
Benefits of Working Capital Management:
The business cash flow is enhanced by better working capital management. It also increases the business's flexibility and profitability. Effective decisions can be made for the welfare of the business. Implementing the working capital management is crucial for the business growth, and it gives better results. So, properly maintain your business's effective management of working capital and discover the changes and developments in the day-to-day activities of the business.
For effective inventory management and accounting, software like InvoiceTemple can be used. Make use of this software for free.
I have an old android xiaomi phone with 128 GB of storage that I want to use as a music streaming server that I can access from my current phone and computer.
I want to know if this is possible and if it is, can it be done without rooting?
Don't have experience with setting up servers, but one idea I have for when I go set up one of my own is a Linux-based server through Termux. Only problem is if you need to change permissions for Android files, as then you'd need root to run sudo-based commands.
I second the use of copyparty. It's very easy to setup under Termux, and has a quite nice web UI, and since it exposes the raw files, you can play them in anything that supports playing remote files, like VLC
If you're hoping to use your phone as is and just install a "server app" onto it to use as a streaming service, I have some bad news for you.
That's definitely not gonna work. If you think you're gonna be able to run a server without root, that's also probably not going to work.
You're most likely going to have to install a custom ROM onto your phone or some version of Linux onto your phone in order to do the thing you want to do.
I don't have much knowledge of it, but the Android communities will probably be the better place to reach out about running a server from a phone
No, I totally understand that, but for the thing you're doing, if you take away piracy, you're just trying to run a server on an Android phone, so you're gonna find better results in an Android forum from sysadmins who want to run a server.
People get nervous with torrenting and pirating, so when you go on the Android forums, don't mention that's the reason you're looking for this.
whatever you go with, you might have an issue with it being constantly plugged in if that's your plan.
I used to run a piratebox off a nexus s years ago and I'd regularly unplug it to let it run off the battery for a while. constant charging can cause excess heat and that's not good for the battery.
Constant plugin isn't actually the problem. When the battery's in good condition, they can stay plugged in and it only charges when it hits 99%, it stops again at 100. But as the battery gets older, the cells degrade and the resistance gets higher. They can start trying to push to 100% when it can no longer get here. At that point, they're supposed to be some smart software to determine that you can no longer charge to that level and reduce the capacity that tries to charge to. But if you never discharge fully and recharge that software often doesn't work.
The best solution for the condition is to use software that makes the phone stop charging it 80%. It takes the battery a very, very long time to lose 20% of its capacity if you don't hit the overcharging over temperature issues.
Having the battery stop at 50% or 80% the battery will probably outlast the hardware.
To properly do this the phone has to support it at hardware level. Pixel and iPhone have this feature but don't know about yours. There are apps like battery guru which will alert you, but you have to manually unplug at that point.
Just install a switch that hard-disconnects the battery from the phone so's you can run it off the outlet without fear of it constantly charging the battery
I wouldn't. I like the idea of repurposing old electronics, but the issue is, it's meant to be a low powered device meant to run off a battery.
You can run Plex off a RPi and those are like $20. A bit more if you want the case and heatsinks and such. They are also (similar to the Android) low powered ARM64 computers, but the hardware and software is more open.
I also have an old 128GB Android phone. I use it as a cosplay prop and I treat it like an iPod Touch. I'm primarily an iPhone guy, so of course it has Apple Music on it, but I also know Android and know where Android excels, so it also has Firefox with uBlock Origin, and Nova Launcher Prime. It's way better to type on because the iOS keyboard has always been dogshit.
Also, you're in the Piracy community. Not to be pedantic, but this is where you'd go to ask how to get the files to populate your music streaming server with. That's my weakness there — I mostly self-host stuff I've bought and ripped myself. There are good tools and you'll find good advice here, but something something old dogs, something something new tricks (me being the old dog, not you, unless you are, in which case, good on you for trying to break the mould). Right. So, what you want is the Self-Hosted community. Don't ask them about where to get the music (that's this community), but they can help on hardware and software. Me, I just use Plex, and I host it off a Mac mini. My desktop computer. You don't need to spend nearly that much on a server. My Mac is a couple generations out now, but it's still overkill for a music server.
The only time I use either of my phones as servers in any capacity is to like send a few files or something — and yes, I can do it just as capably with either. Honestly though both of them can easily host a file server another phone (either platform) can connect to and download from.
Non-Zero Pi models haven't been even close to $20 for a while now. Any Pi these days is gonna be $60-80 for a fully functioning setup (Pi + SD + case + power adapter), at the minimum. And I wouldn't run Plex off a Pi Zero, those have more or less the same specs as the 1st/2nd gen Pis.
Termux and Termux:Boot should be able to do this, but make sure you can limit the charge to something like 50% since it'll always be plugged in and keep an eye on the settings/limits so it doesn't run hot.
This consolidation of power is a dream come true for the Big Tech platforms, but it’s a nightmare for users. While the megacorporations get more traffic and a whole lot more user data (read: profit), users are left with far fewer community options and a bland, corporate surveillance machine instead of a vibrant public sphere. The internet we all fell in love with is a diverse and colorful place, full of innovation, connection, and unique opportunities for self-expression. That internet—our internet—is worth defending.
If you live in Mississippi, you may have noticed that you are no longer able to log into your Bluesky or Dreamwidth accounts from within the state. That’s because, in a chilling early warning sign for the U.S.
Hopefully, in the EU at least, the verification will be provided by the government. Like a 2FA, meaning Big Tech would only get a verified token and nothing else.
The government already got passports with our face, and have had it for many years. They could use that information.
That would mean that any platform could implement this verification, and never get hold on any data.
one of the big problems that isn't solved by this is what gets to be behind verification. who decides what kids aren't allowed to see. we've seen already that most of the world's governments can't really be trusted with what is adult content and not.
When I was in highschool my friends parents had child lock bullshit on his computer, poor sod couldn't even goto wikipedia because there are articles with naughty words.
We need to reframe the discussion from "it's for the children" to "it's for lazy parents".
People are keen to scapegoat parents, and here it's the truth. They don't want to use existing opt-in controls, or put the damn computer where they can keep an eye on Little Timmy while he uses it. Make the entirery of the legal system do it for you!
Ok, so I also hate the "protect the children" argument, and there are certainly plenty of lazy parents around.
However, if everyone 10 year old at school has a phone and a Facebook account, it's just so much more difficult for parents who are not lazy to hold the line. Its an extraordinarily difficult situation. You'd make your kid's a pariah by upholding a basic standard of care.
By prohibiting access for kids you set the basic societal standard. Yes it will be circumvented but you enable parents to uphold appropriate restrictions.
Is it worth it? Probably not. Its not a good thing but as a dad I can see the intention.
I'm surprised there isn't more of a crowdsourced solution-- community maintained block/allow lists and pluggable tools.
Part of the reason filters suck right now is that they're sold to turboprudes and people pushing compliance solutions that will placate litigious turboprudes. So you get blocking all of Wikipedia and .edu/.gov because three pages have an anatomical diagram of a breast. The kids are frustrated, normal parents have to keep unblocking legit stuff, and nobody wins.
If you could pick from easily managed lists sponsored by groups you personally trusted, with responsive appeals systems, people might be more willing to use them.
The ad-blocker ecosystem has a lot of precedent for how to work this stuff.
"protect the children" is such a fucking bullshit excuse. If they gave a fuck about children, they'd stop them being slaughtered in schools every fucking day.
You make a good point. Now, I have 2 kids (12 and 10), and they use phones (when one of us allow them to). However, and thank God for that, the school they go to has banned cell phones entirely, which effectively reduces the unsupervised exposure to stuff we don't want them to be on yet. Additionally, I removed everything 'big tech' from those phones, so they use Signal to communicate with their friends and family, get to stream content from my Jellybean instance, and have all types of DAV in my server to keep files, contacts, calendars and whatnot synchronized. Plus, I keep them tracked with my own Traccar instance when they go out, and I audit their devices pretty regularly.
I am all too aware we cannot shield them from everything. Some things will fall through the cracks, but that's been the case even when we were kids (dad playboy mag left carelessly somewhere easy to grab?). This does not mean that I will allow, or even want, the government of any country deciding how my kids are raised. That's my wife's and my job, nobody else's.
Having said that, I wholeheartedly agree with the fact that lazy parents are the ones that help the obscure intent of governments and large corporations drive this kind of shit to spy and control us.
Unfortunately the largest percentage of parents worldwide are just that lazy and irresponsible, and unless they change that, this will be the life and challenge of actually responsible parents. Sadly, I don't see those parents suddenly caring for their kids,it just doesn't happen. Why would they drop such convenience?
No. There's no "hopefully" anything when it comes to this bullshit. It's bad for the individual, full stop. This is not a thing to compromise on, because any compromise at all will eventually harm the users (though leaks/hacks, or government overreach, etc.) without any actual benefit or offset to them.
If I have to verify myself I simply won't use it, I really don't care, there's nothing so important online that I need to prove my identity to see it. (Banking and shit like that aside of course). Social media? Give me a break I'm already over it before all this ID shit. I hope it all burns to the ground.
this. I refuse to make more accounts, and verify personal info. Ive been prepping for the big disconnect from the internet as a result. there will come a time when it just won't be usable
Same. I know there are easy ways around it but I'm not going to use them, and I wish more people could take this attitude - if everyone cut down their Internet usage in response to this ID stuff things would quickly start to turn around
The fact that you recognise it would be a struggle should honestly spur you on even more to do it. People got by for a long time without the Internet and even though now the same infrastructure they'd have used is at best a shell of its former self if not gone entirely it would still be possible. We don't have to stop entirely but if a bunch of sites suddenly find their traffic is way down they'd start to put pressure on about getting rid of ID checks and we might finally see some movement
Oh, I know. No preaching required. I'm from pre-internet days. That's why I agree with you. Being this dependent on the internet is not good for me or anyone else.
There's no shortage of other ways to get it for an enterprising person, maybe a few extra clicks once you know where to go. That's likely one of the goals though, whitewashing the internet. It's such a massive business though, but maybe very fractured and independent.
People just go to the porn sites that aren't hosted in a jurisdiction that requires ID verification and the ID verifying platforms lose traffic or people use VPNs.
I have young kids, and marketplace has saved me thousands of dollars. Kids need a lot of different stuff at different ages and it's nice to be able to flip the stuff you dont need anymore and get the stuff they do need second hand.
Also messenger, what's app. My apartment building has a what's app group thats invaluable. I talk to customers on messenger.
I'm in this weird middle ground where I hate FB with a passion and it depresses me every time I log in, but I need to create a personal brand for my business (and to get laid, who am I kidding) and honestly I'm thinking about getting one of my friends to run it for me, which seems weird but
Don't know where you are, but Kijiji is absolutely thriving in Ontario. My old man has about 40-50 items up at any given time, and has no problems finding buyers to rotate through his stock, and he is nowhere near a major population centre. I just looked at ads for a city centre and there is a lot available. It is definitely possible to work outside of facebook.
Then you dont ever get to complain. You have other options, but its too hard for you, so youd rather just contribute to pissing away freedoms and privacy. Its because of people like you, who wont put up with even a little discomfort, that we are where we are. They keep pushing, and people like just keep on saying "OK".
If we are ever to stop this increasingly vile push to have us be endlessly profiled, its unfortunately going to have to be people like you that finally grow a fucking back bone. So yeah, we're fucked...
Get offline and go out. I can't tell you what your options are in your area. I could give you a whole list of the options in my area, but only you know where everything is in your environment.
There's salvation army and Savers, and that's about it. Usually they don't have great stuff. Unfortunately, Facebook marketplace is where people in this area go to sell shit.
Its got nothing to do with some frivolous ideology, and everything to do with not letting someone else manipulate me through convenience. People like you always have excuses, but the reality is that youre just lazy. You want your hand held by some tech daddy, you need your hand held by some tech daddy. Because other wise you might have to think for yourself. And that, well, thats just too much effort. No, better to bend over, spread cheeks, and present your arse to the gods of convenience. Well, that and all your data...
Eh, youre the only one doing the name calling and character assassination, cunty chops... Im just calling it like I see it, and youre feeling personally attacked...
It is totally avoidable, you will find new ways to handle your business. You have to stop using their service, they are a cancer on our society and they are actively engaging in propaganda for genocide amongst many other shitty things.
The sooner you pull the trigger the better off you will be. It is past time to move on.
Well, sure ok it's "avoidable" in the sense that I'm not forced to engage with facebook or any other company or platform.
However, the imposition on my daily functioning and ability to interact with my peers would be severely disaffected.
If there's a group of a dozen people that I know in person who are interacting on whats app, then if I want to interact with them I need to use whats app.
Edit: The article references Bluesky fleeing Mississippi due to risk of fines. Do admins running fediverse instances run similar risks?
Bluesky was the first platform to make the announcement. In a public blogpost, Bluesky condemned H.B. 1126’s broad scope, barriers to innovation, and privacy implications, explaining that the law forces platforms to “make every Mississippi Bluesky user hand over sensitive personal information and undergo age checks to access the site—or risk massive fines.” As Bluesky noted, “This dynamic entrenches existing big tech platforms while stifling the innovation and competition that benefits users.” Instead, Bluesky made the decision to cut off Mississippians entirely until the courts consider whether to overturn the law.
A new Mississippi law requires us to block full access to Bluesky unless all users complete age checks. We have concerns about this law’s implementation.
Eugen issued a statement that Mastodon is physically incapable of implementing age verification and that thedecentralized nature of the fediverse means there is no central authority that can block regions which define these laws.
IANAL, but I imagine under the laws, they would go after individual instance owners to mandate verification. The laws have no provision for third party software, so it would fall to the courts, but most instances don’t have the funds to fight it.
Decentralized social network Mastodon says it cannot comply with age verification laws, like in Mississippi and elsewhere, and says it's up to individual server owners to decide.
there need to be dedicated 3rd party age verification services separate from the site. the people with my identity info don’t need to see what i’m doing on the site, and the site doesn’t need to know my identity any more than a general age group.
No, as soon as you ask the government to send a site a token verifying you, you’ve given up your privacy to the government.
Also, how are smaller sites going to pay for this service? This is the tech bros using the religious nuts to pull the ladder up behind them. Locking in the monopoly. The only answer is the freedom we’ve had for the last 35 years.
Well, as much as I hate it, there's no privacy when it comes to your government, and this is the case even since the internet was a thing.
Yes, we can keep some stuff obscured from the government, but the fact is that they know everything about us since we are born (probably even before). We need driver's license, passport, bank accounts, registering homes, cars, even dogs, putting kids in the school system, health services, the list seems infinite.
But that does not mean we have to stop pushing back, because if we do, we're utterly fucked.
My government doesn't know everything about me. Look at the news and how long it takes for basic information about a high profile criminal to come out. It takes a lot of investigative effort to put all that info together, even if it's all largely from various government agencies.
Some stuff is easy to track (e.g. registrations), but a lot isn't. That means there's absolutely precedent for privacy from the government on things that don't matter to it. Why should the welfare department need information about my driving history or whether I have a passport? It doesn't, so it shouldn't have access.
I agree, it shouldn't, but I but they do. Don't deceive yourself like that. As I said, some stuff you can (still) keep under wraps, that's how criminals do it, but connecting the dots they almost invariably get caught, sooner or later.
Right, like Al Capone got caught for tax evasion instead of all the murders and whatnot. If they're digging, they'll find it, and they can get almost anything with a warrant.
My point is that governments are generally pretty dysfunctional with information sharing, so even if they have a piece of information, it's unlikely the appropriate agency has it. They're getting more and more information the more crap like age verification gets passed, but that doesn't change the dysfunction between agencies.
I can never disagree with this premise. Government institutions are dysfunctional and broken as hell, regardless of the country we're referring to. And that alone supports your point, so I have to say, you are right, not one single institution has all our info. The sum of all of them may, however, have it all. Should they choose to organize all our data and have it centralized (say one database for all institutions to feed from) it's just a matter of merging the data and giving all of them access, even if they use different systems.
That's where I'm going with this. We do need to obscure as much as we can, but knowing what we're not able to keep private anymore is pivotal to focus on those things that we can keep under our control.
My point is that it's not hopeless. We can have reasonable privacy today, and we can change the laws to protect the rest. If we just assume we don't have privacy, our governments will continue to take.
Then, I apologize, as it seems that I misrepresented your comments. Yes, we can still safeguard our privacy, and we should. This will need a very good chunk of the population making changes, educating children on the dangers of not having privacy, and how the government works for the population, not the other way around. This will require many to get out of their comfort zone, and stop providing data and/money to the corporations that have most individuals convinced that we can't live without their services, which is completely false. This will be painful, but then again, what revolution isn't?
You can't always simply VPN around it. I applied for a job via one of the popular job sites. Tried to log back in to the job site a week later only to to find my account had been blocked until I provide proof of ID to a US based third party company ...I'm in Europe. Spoiler alert: I did not provide proof of ID & so have no idea whether or not I was a suitable applicant for the job.
Guess i won't be job hunting through that site again. The whole thing is farcical.
This is the display of how we fight this. And I can only imagine the balls it took for you to take that position and move along. You're one of those scarce unsung heroes that stands by his values instead of bending over to avoid inconvenience or even potentially detrimental outcomes.
Some of them. Yes, many others not so much. Are you not realizing the thread you're commenting on here?
That smaller site services and companies who really don't want to collect this data are going to be forced to at an expense that may be too high for their entry point into the market they're trying to work in?
Or even worse websites or services that are hosted for free may have to incur costs they cannot afford for data they don't want to collect.
Unfortunately sometimes it's too late. Any platform can lock your account and keep your data until you unlock it and GDPR and similar do not protect against it. That's what Twitter and LinkedIn started to do - require verification and no way to delete your account if you decline.
Yeah, the power these companies have over our lives is very disturbing. They have positioned themselves as something most academic people really need, at least linkedin has.
I've never used WhatsApp and never will. My friends and family can contact me through a number of other ways, and I'm introverted enough that it won't bother me too much if they don't.
Depends on the nature of the platform. It is not good for small commercial entities that will be required to enact a ID verification system because it will increase the cost of entry to the market.
Increasing the cost of entry will benefit large corporations that will easily absorb the cost. Platforms that don't require it will likely be unaffected.
It is not good for small commercial entities that will be required to enact a ID verification system because it will increase the cost of entry to the market.
As someone who works in this space, I doubt it’s going to be an issue for smaller entities. We already have SSO for basic login identity from a variety of providers (Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Apple) — smaller sites already love to use these as it provides easy access to existing users, and saves a ton of coding for having to handle login information, password management, etc.
These same entities can handle the age verification. Now I can see arguments as to why centralizing logins and age verification like this could be a problem for users, but if I decided to start my own social media app tomorrow I’d likely rely on the big platforms to handle all of this (as we already see everywhere — heck, app for ordering pizza support Facebook, Google, and Apple logins), and save myself the cost and hassle of implementing this myself (never mind the potential embarrassment and liability should someone hack my site). Then it’s on those platforms to worry about age verification.
All of these services are currently free, and save you from a ton of coding around user accounts and authentication, so using them is usually cheaper then having to DIY it.
I could see it being an issue for more privacy-oriented sites. I imagine some Lemmy and Mastodon users might be less inclined to have to login to Apple, Google or Microsoft to be able to interact with others even if the vast majority of users are fine with it. Would be nice for somebody to come up with an open-source service that handles some more basic age verification so other services can just self-host it instead of each platform implementing their own logins. By basic age verification I mean things like matching user behaviour to users with a known age and maybe some face scanning. Nowhere near perfect and it’s a constant cat and mouse game, but maybe enough to be compliant with the law.
If age verification wasn’t being made mandatory in Australia for social media sites I think it could be a great idea for some services especially if the verification is done by the government with the same level as photo ID. Think dating apps, finance and marketplace sites where having a higher level of confidence that the person you are talking to is who they say they really matters, especially if law enforcement need to be involved down the line. Even if you the user can’t verify the identity of the other person, law enforcement could, and the site might be able to block alt accounts. The credential theft problem still exists of course so it’s no silver bullet, but it’s a lot better than what we have now.
And that’s just fine. Considering how many people do login with those services, I doubt any that use the SSO services will particularly miss you and the small subset of users who don’t want to let a third-party service confirm your login.
That’s not meant as snark — every app and website out there has some subset of users who will decry “I won’t use that because it does X”. And that’s fine. It’s a personal decision. But it likely won’t significantly affect development decisions, as it’s going to happen with some group for some reason anyway.
And that’s always worked out in the past, hasn’t it?
Imagine putting your entire business in a position where one of Google’s half-assed AIs could decide tomorrow at zero notice to cut you off from your entire user base.
This is why most apps that do use such services use more than one. Lots of modern sites have buttons for “Login with Google”, “Login with Facebook”, “Login with Apple”. None of them want to lose access to the user data and analytics they get from these services — so I doubt one is going to jump into cutting you off or requiring payment while the others are still free.
It would take all of these services to (illegally) coordinate to suddenly start charging — and of all of them I don’t see that being in the interest at all for Apple. Apple’s login service uses Touch and Face ID on their devices, and is part of the selling point for those devices (extremely easy logins with no password). They’re not making their money off Single Sign-On (SSO) login services — they make their money off selling devices, and they make the case for selling these devices in large part by selling “simplicity”.
So if you’re worried today about a login service yanking the rug out from under you, you just implement many/all of them. It’s not significantly more work — all of them are based off OAuth — so long as your website or app can authenticate via OAuth you just need to use the APIs each company provides to implement the authentication, and you’re done.
Nothing them stops you as you get bigger form implementing your own login/authentication service — and if you ever get big enough, you too can offer it as a service for other websites.
Depends on the platform surely, couldn't a lemmy instance just ignore the UK? Not block, ignore.
I am sure I saw that smaller platforms are seeing a surge in popularity because they are not doing it while pornhub saw a large drop. How many switched to a VPN and how many use another site?
Even safer might be that image that's been circulating. It states that if you're in the UK, the hosting site is required to verify your age, but they're not required to verify your location. Now, please click on of these buttons indicating whether or not you're in the UK to determine whether age verification must be performed.
(Presumably "I am in the UK" leads to an innocuous website)
It gives more info as to the consequences of clicking that button. If they just ask if you're in the UK, people could reasonably assume they're going to serve UK-relevant content. If they say it's for ave verification purposes directly, people will know they can click the other button to avoid the spyware.
I don't think I agree, as I think almost any individual clicking those buttons could extrapolate that there was some subterfuge involved, but I do appreciate your take.
Did you see the original meme to which I'm referring?
I'm also not a Brit, but it was popular here on lemmy for a day or two. Unfortunately, my very brief image searches aren't returning it, but I'll try to find it for you.
i find it interesting that some of the most debased, vile, disgusting perverts to ever live are passing laws to force regular, everyday people to dox themselves just so they can see a tig ol gilf bitty.
Amazes me how the UK Labour Party and Starmer managed to absolutely squander their one opportunity after gaining power for the first time in many years.
What if devices would have a private chip to have the ID, so the website would just request if user is underage or not. Would this be private? Instead of sending the whole id to the online platform?
Some kind of anonymous token that says "I'm adult" and smart card on credit cards are kind of that, but they have a unique identifier that identifies you. They're not anonymous which is the only acceptable kind of adult verification. It makes more sense to cordon off all parts of the internet with identity/age verification and consider them destroyed. I'd like to have an IP banlist of all participants in his harebrained scheme, just rip off the bandair immediately rather than have them shit the bed down the line.
Maybe a government run service that reads your unique identifier and provides a simple adult:yes/no to the website. That takes the burden off the sites and keeps personal identification info in a publicly owned system.
Yeah I could see something like that. It would be similar to log in with Google or Apple. They would be a trusted 3rd party that has the responsibility of validating age and they just pass on a pass or fail to the site.
Wondering if other sources of free streaming VOD movies are acceptable here? There are multiple, legal AFAIK ones, although almost always with geo-restrictions of some kind.
Once upon a time, I thought I saw a guide where yt-dlp can work with CR but for the life of me I can’t find it. Does anyone know if it still works? I have a premium subscription and would like to make sure I still have access to some of my favorite shows should I move out of country.
Yt-dlp doesn't deal with cracking, but by fetching the files from DRM-free endpoints of a given service. And from what I've seen in issues from both yt-dlp and Grayjay, such endpoints were all removed in recent months for Crunchyroll (and by extensions, neither support downloading from Crunchyroll anymore).
IIRC Crunchyroll used to be a pirate site so that may be where you heard that? But they've been legit for years.
I would say just look for x265 (HEVC) webrips of your favorite content and throw it on a Plex (or Jellyfin if you don't have any Apple stuff) server. On the flip, if you have all Apple tech, Infuse is a good option, but IIRC it doesn't stream outside your network like the other two do.
I have premium and I just prefer to pull straight from the source rather than getting a rip someone else did. It lets me customize the highest quality I want. I’ve used Zotify and usually rip straight from BDs normally too, but it sounds like I might just have to find the webrips like you said.
It's not completely meaningless because if it's truly the only option I'm going to be using it until I eventually replace my current phone with one with an unlocked bootloader.
There are plenty of people developing apps that require root, and users who run those are already jumping through a million hoops of cat and mouse to keep their fucking mcdonalds app detecting it so they can get cheaper coffees and free fries.
Like seriously, wtf McDonalds, your app is like the ultimate root/safetynet/device id detection tool, I don't think there exists even a banking app that is as hard to fool.
They're already developing the apps for the 1% of us not just using proprietary apps from the play store. I don't think this just kills open source app development.
So just take one day a month and do your maintance. Anything that isn't from the Play store isn't exactly getting Dev work every day to patch whatever.
Whatever, I don't love this either, but it's not some absolute deal breaker IMO. Maybe 6/10 dealbreaker. We disagree and thats fine. Now please downvote like you were going to do anyway.
It will be stupid, but I presume there will be a rise in desktop apps or webapps that require you to only plug the phone in and it will handle the rest.
Yeah, if something like Obtanium needs to run on my desktop instead of my phone and I have to plug it in every once in a while, that's not the end of the world.
There are already android apps that allow you to ADB into your own phone without root, so you could VERY EASILY just make an app store that utilises that, you only need to install the app from desktop once
We already have to do that to install older apps. It's inconvenient, but not as bad as having to boot up an ancient phone every time you need to use the app.
Perhaps someone could write an 'adb loopback' app -- get that into the official app store, and said app would then squirt other .apk files through adb on the phone to itself, thus sideloading it.
As far as I know, ADB needs to be run on another device which is plugged into the phone.
I suppose one could write a script/app that detects the device is plugged in, and automatically looks for and installs updates using adb. That would be the least amount of friction.
I don’t know, even people here are already considering it a loss of the only way is through ADB, because it’s not practical for everyday usage. But it’s better than nothing.
Yeah, that's why it's still in the "considering" phase for me as well - especially considering Trump's tariffs crap. It also seems a tad underpowered for the price, and they still don't have the promised removable battery replacements in their store.
It's worth remembering, though, that the cost covers the constant software updates, as well as their user support. As such, it's much like the Apple model of business, except much more open - so in the end it's probably worth it.
Don't forget "side effects", when really, medications only have "effects". Whether the effects are intended or not doesn't change the fact that they happen.
Cough medicine can induce drowsiness, but you probably shouldn't be taking it as a sleep aid. The distinction between intended vs unintended effects is an important distinction to make, in my opinion, to prevent drugs from being unintentionally misused.
While that is true, it does not invalidate the poster's point. All of the effects of drugs are just "effects". They could just as easily market cough syrup as a sleep aid with the "side effect" that it suppresses coughing.
The difference in definition in this context is simply that "drug uses" is the list of its effects that they were going for, and "side effects" are a list of effects that they were not. Its entirely a man made distinction. Extend that reasoning to the "installing" vs. "side loading" discussion to see the poster's point.
I believe him to be suggesting that "side loading" is a very different word for "installing" that can be loaded by PR people to shift public opinion against the practice. Whether or not they are doing that I can't say myself, but that appears to be the point being made.
They could just as easily have coined it "direct installing" or "USB installing", but they didn't even though those terms are more descriptive. Draw from that whatever you will.
Talking to the wrong guy here, I've taken many a medications against their intended purpose: I am a curious guy.
But that sounds like saying, in the context of Google's intention of disabling app sideloading, that warning users that it poses a security risk because it's their intended purpose for android, is fine because the authority on android is Google.
Don't just take the word of authority at face value, when they prioritize profit and mindshare over personal freedom.
Wait, so now I have to talk to a doctor before installing from F-Droid? Well, shit.
For all intents and purposes, your comment actually invalidates the premise of using 'sideloading' as a term for installing from outside the 'official' method.
You buy cough syrup because you're coughing, not because you want to be drowsy (I would hope that's the case). In the same way, you install Spotify to listen to music, not to get all your data extracted and sold. Getting drowsy is an inconvenient side effect of the medication, the same way that data grab and ads are an inconvenient side effect of the app.
You are the master of your body, the person who decides ultimately what goes in and out of your body, No doctor can force you to take anything. That's what I mean, The play store aka the doctor wants to become the master that decides what apps go in or out of your phone, instead of the user. My comment doesn't invalidate the premise of the use of the term sideloading, because I don't agree with the term to begin with.
Whether the effect is ideal or not does not change what is chemically happening in the body. The body can't tell apart side effects from the main ones, so this distinction exists because humans deemed it so, just like the distinction between play store sanctioned apps, and everything else. It's a distinction that Google is now abusing for it's own monetary benefit.
It is, because it's actually the term that defines the process of transferring files not from an external networked device - downloading - or to an external networked device - uploading - but between two local devices - sideloading.
It's over two decades old, you downloaded an mp3 from kazaa, and then sideloaded it to your player.
For android apps, I believe the term originates from the method of using ADB to directly write the app to the phone memory, the command of which is "adb sideload filename"
And companies ofted do it. Thay recoined jaywalking to put the blaim of the accidents to pedestrians and take away the road from them. They change what littering means in attrmpt to delute the responsibility for polution... We are better than that this time, right?
I assume you're unaware of the concerted advertising campaigns by auto manufacturers to take public streets away from pedestrians, including things like
The industry hired actors dressed in old-fashioned clothing to illegally cross streets, making the behavior seem outdated
"Jay" had started as a word for drivers driving on the wrong side of the road
jaywalker was pre-dated by jay-driver – a driver of a horse-drawn carriage or automobile that refused to abide by the traffic laws by driving on the wrong side of the road
While the term jaywalking has been used for decades, the origin of the word itself seems to come from several different sources. Before the 20th century,
It's extremely on topic for the thread you responded to.
Google has a concerted effort to make "sideloading" bad, so they can remove it without public backlash
The next comment in the chain mentioned how auto manufacturers did the same thing, villainizing people using public spaces by calling it "jaywalking" until it became illegal to walk on public roads
That was done to take public spaces away from pedestrians and give it to cars
This is being done to take software outside of Google Play away and give the only profit to google
how and why it was used to essentially mean "a stupid person"
You told me how it was used to mean "a stupid driver". Seems like an accurate term to describe drivers and walkers alike doing stupid things, like walking into traffic. 🤷
They didn't make illegal to cross the street. They made it illegal to cross the street in a particular time or place where the walker would endanger themselves.
I'm not missing any historical context. What I'm missing is how the term is inaccurate or used inappropriately.
If you actually care, you can start with things like "walkable cities," look at city planning before Ford made it illegal, look into how NYC has made it no longer a crime, etc.
It doesn't actually seem like you do, though
Ford's work to reframe the action caused massive changes to urban planning, mostly for the worse.
Their work to change cultural views are apparently so strong, you can't see how changing the language around it was "inaccurate or inappropriate"
That's what Google is doing to the average user for "sideloading" - in a few generations, they will have stigmatized it enough that people will be saying it shouldn't be allowed
Again, you keep insisting that I just don't understand anything about walkable cities or talking about Ford's ad campaigns. I do. That is not what we're discussing.
What we're discussing is how the word is inaccurate or inappropriate or "blames" anyone other than those who are doing exactly what the word is intended to describe. And it doesn't seem like you have any interest in putting forth a legitimate argument so I guess we're done here.
If you truly understand the historical context of how calling it "jaywalking" rather than what it was at the time has been used to change the cultural narrative, and you understand how Google (and Apple) are trying to say "sideloading" is dangerous and shouldn't be allowed on their devices, but can't get to how that shift in narrative is being used... I agree, there's no point in continuing
I see your confusion. You are assessing it from the reality when the project already succeed. You think: people who wonder on the street are to blame if they are hit. How term change it in anyway? Right? Streets are for cars. Obviously.
But before the campaing, the streets actually belonged to the people and cars was the dafoult expectation. You had a shopping carts there, children plaing, cyklist and walkers. Cars were introduced, and the responsibility was on the driver to keep attention. When the increasing number of accidents start to generate the bad press and there was a risk that use of car will become highly regulated, they launched the the campaign with a basic premise "car accidents victims are simpletons that have only themselves to blaim".
Your confusions is a testimony to how well it worked.
You think: people who wonder on the street are to blame if they are hit.
I have said absolutely nothing to give you that impression so I have to assume this is just an ad hominem in the absence of any legitimate explanation.
I think you may have glossed over the word "drivers" there. The word was used to describe people ignoring traffic regulations, both while driving and walking.
I didn't "blame" anyone, I just said it was ignorant, as is the literal definition of the word, according to the person I replied to.
Society has this super weird position that there can only ever be one person or entity to blame. You can blame a pedestrian for ignorantly wandering into traffic while simultaneously blaming the driver for being inattentive.
To be clear, your position is that "stupid person walked into the traffic" and "it's that person fault" are two different things? You grasp the tiniest of straws. (You accused me of ad hominem, look up motte-and-bailey)
But even beside that you miss the point entirely. What I tried yo explain you there was that there was no "into the traffic" there. People didn't "wonder" on the streets. They were just there. Like today they are on the sidewalk. People were the rule cars were the exception. If electric scooter run into the pedestrian, you don't defoult into "the pedestrian was likely ignorant". Imagine scooter manufacturers start to call people involved in the accidents like this something like "loonies" or "zombies" until the legislation that people can walk only directly beside the curb is passed... And 10 years from that somene like you will argue "but skipping across the entire sidewalk is ignorant and careless. Term loonie sounds accurate to me".
What I tried yo explain you there was that there was no "into the traffic" there. People didn't "wonder" on the streets.
That is not what you said. What you said was, and I quote "You think: people who wonder on the street are to blame if they are hit."
If people are not "wandering into the street" then they are not "jaywalking", are they?
People were the rule cars were the exception.
It doesn't matter which one is which. The one that is "jay" is the one doing so without any regard for the rules, endangering themselves and other road users.
Imagine scooter manufacturers start to call people involved in the accidents like this something like "loonies" or "zombies"
That would be a completely different use of the word, since neither of these words mean "someone who operates scooters carelessly and without regard for the rules", as jaywalking does.
You will never convince anyone by gaslighting them into believing you didn't say things you did (especially where it's clearly documented) and continually pursuing strawman arguments.
Yes, those are not the same and that's exactly the point.
2nd one is me trying to understand your perspective and assumimg that you asses the irresponsibility of wondering into trafic must comr from the modern perspective in accordance with modern standards (existing traffic laws and road culture) - reality after PR campaign.
1st one is pointing out that that traffic laws and road culture were different back then, and.we.can't even talk about "wondering into" traffic anymore than we could talk about "wondering into sidewalk" - reality before PR campaign.
Those two not being the same is the result of PR campaign changing one state of round culture to another by stigmatizing being a pedestrian on the street. That's the problem we are discussing.
Come on.
(Man, I'm regretting biting after it was obvious this conversation is going nowhere. This time I'm truly out. Feel free to have your last word, but - hopefully - I'll not address it)
Personally? It was based on things you said. We allready discused it, right? And it was the only thing to.me that made sense. At least than you'd be understandably wrong, instead of stubbornly wrong. If you understand that before the campaign walking on the streets was normal and perfectly leagal and the capaign stigmatized it as a simpletons behavior of irresponsible people, than I honestly don't understand what is the hill you chose to die on.
You could blame the pedestrian, but it would be incorrect. A pedestrian is more vulnerable and harmless than a vehicle, and arguably has more of a reason to be traveling through the downdown of a city on foot than the vehicle does.
When cars began taking over streets making it dangerous for the people there, and auto makers lobbied to make cities more car centric, it made the cities way worse.
Imagine for a moment if in the model t days, the dangerous vehicle was held responsible and regulated instead of the people walking. We would have walkable cities today and cars wouldn't be allowed to take over.
We are not talking about individual blame, we're upset at the historical choices that led to a car centric landscape.
You could blame the pedestrian, but it would be incorrect.
How would you know that when I haven't even specified any circumstances? Unless your intention is to suggest there are no circumstances in which a pedestrian is even partially to blame?
If a pedestrian sprints out from behind a wall into traffic moving 70MPH, that's 100% the driver's fault for hitting them? This is the logic you want to go with?
A pedestrian is more vulnerable and harmless than a vehicle
What does that have to do with whose responsibility it is!?
and arguably has more of a reason to be traveling through the downdown of a city on foot than the vehicle does
No they don't? And why are we downtown?
Imagine for a moment if in the model t days, the dangerous vehicle was held responsible and regulated instead of the people walking.
You mean instead of a world where we hold responsible the people who are actually responsible?
We would have walkable cities today and cars wouldn't be allowed to take over.
No, we would just have more criminals. The only way we have walkable cities is by banning cars.
We are not talking about individual blame, we're upset at the historical choices that led to a car centric landscape.
I know you want to talk about that. I agree with you. But it is, in fact, not what we're talking about. We're talking about the supposed use of the word "jaywalking" implying that all pedestrians are to blame for collisions.
The time is 1900. There are no traffic laws. A car almost runs into a dude.
If you say, "that car is dangerous" you are correct, and society tends towards making laws that protect pedestrians.
If you say "that person is jaywalking" you are framing the situation such that the car has more of a right to be there than the person. Maybe you think that cars are modern. "The wave of the future." This is the incorrect framing. We have seen how much of a mistake this was.
Some places like the Netherlands have been undoing the damage, rectifying the error in urban design.
We are downtown because that was the context in which the term "jaywalking" was invented. To kick pedestrians out of their own downtown.
We're talking about the supposed use of the word "jaywalking" implying that all pedestrians are to blame for collisions
Maybe that's what you're talking about. The rest of us are talking about how "jaywalking" was coined to make a normal behavior (people walking around their city) seem wrong. That is why so many people are telling you to listen to what they're saying.
Can't help but notice you declined to answer any of my questions.
If you say "that person is jaywalking" you are framing the situation such that the car has more of a right to be there than the person.
Incorrect. You are framing the situation such that the jaywalker is endangering themselves and other road users by ignoring the rules of the road that keep everyone safe. "Jaywalking" does not refer to pedestrians as a whole, only the people committing the act of jaywalking.
Some places like the Netherlands have been undoing the damage, rectifying the error in urban design.
Wonderful! Good for them!
We are downtown because that was the context in which the term "jaywalking" was invented.
Okay, so "jaywalking" only applies "downtown". Presumably you can provide a source for this?
The rest of us are talking about how "jaywalking" was coined to make a normal behavior (people walking around their city) seem wrong
That is not what you're talking about. You're talking about automotive propaganda and the history of urban infrastructure. Nothing about the term itself or how it was misused or appropriated to mean something other than exactly what it does.
That is why so many people are telling you to listen to what they're saying.
They keep saying things that I already know. Strawman topics that I agree with and don't require further discussion.
You are framing the situation such that the jaywalker is endangering themselves and other road users by ignoring the rules of the road that keep everyone safe. "Jaywalking" does not refer to pedestrians as a whole, only the people committing the act of jaywalking.
This is simply miskaken. At the time the term was invented, the streets were for pedestrians. There were natually no laws or norms saying people shouldnt walk in the street. Car companies waged a campaign to kick pedestrians out. If we can't agree on this basic fact, I am not sure how to continue the discussion.
There were natually no laws or norms saying people shouldnt walk in the street
There aren't any today either. But there are regulations about where and when people should walk in the street. Violations of these regulations (not literally just moving your feet back and forth) are known as jaywalking.
Now you're doing that strawman thing again. No one said there were no laws. What I said is that there are no laws saying that people cannot walk in the street.
They are called the right of way.
Yes, exactly. Jaywalking is the act of ignoring the right of way. Thank you for clarifying that.
I will not argue further with someone who is unable to incorporate new information.
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
The point is, there shouldn't be a distinction. To make one is to support prejudice against installing software from elsewhere.
If you use "installing" for stuff from the Google store but any other word for stuff from other sources, you are aiding and abetting Google's anti-property-rights propaganda.
There has to be. When 99% of installs come from one location, there needs to be a way to describe that other than "Installing apps from outside the default app store".
To make one is to support prejudice against installing software from elsewhere.
Okay, I understand your position. Android's play store has market dominance, so the a term to distinguish between 99% of play store installs vs others, makes sense.
Now, that is a tangent to the main issue, just arguing semantics. The issue is control versus openness, not about the term sideloading.
Is Google's plan to restrict app sideloading a good thing in your eyes, or no?
Nice, I could tell you're a smart dude, so at least we all can agree that Android is no longer to be trusted.
Funny how words and language become the focus of this thread, and then the main issues get pushed to the side. I was arguing against you as if we didn't agree on the main problem 😅
Installing an app is not the same thing as installing an app? What difference does it make where it came from? Why do you need two different words for installing an app? Why does the distinction of where it came from matter when the outcome is no different?
I didn't say that's what you said, I'm making a point that its the same fucking thing. Read the rest of my comment and answer my questions please. Or do you agree that there's no functional difference and splitting hairs about where it came from is just a way to enforce corporate hegemony?
It was clearly the implied suggestion. I've already answered your questions a dozen times elsewhere. Gonna have to have a poke around because I don't feel like typing them again.
Or do you agree that there's no functional difference and splitting hairs about where it came from is just a way to enforce corporate hegemony?
The functional difference is that one means "installing from anywhere" and the other means "installing from outside the default app store". They are different words with different meanings, one being more specific than the other.
It's like saying "neurosurgeon" instead of "medical professional". There is a difference. One is much more specific. "Neurosurgeon" wasn't made up by Big Pharma to gaslight you into believing brain surgery was bad, it's just a lot fewer words than "medical professional who does surgery on brains".
The functional difference is that one means “installing from anywhere” and the other means “installing from outside the default app store”. They are different words with different meanings, one being more specific than the other.
If the outcome is the same, then there is no functional difference. If I say I need to see a doctor, there is a functional difference between a neurosurgeon and another medical professional. If I say I want to download a calculator app, there is no functional difference if I download it from a first-party app store or a third-party app store. You're splitting hairs. Stop supporting corporate hegemony.
If the outcome is the same, then there is no functional difference.
The outcome is absolutely not the same. If Google said "we're no longer allowing you to install apps", that would be a completely different conversation. There is a functional differrence.
If someone sent a nurse in to do your neurosugery, that would absolutely not be the same...
I don't understand why this needs to be explained...
You're splitting hairs
My brother in Christ, you're literally the one splitting hairs...that's the opposite of what I'm doing.
Why would you want to call it sideloading when you're not loading from the side?
I don't know what you think "loading from the side" means? I use the term for the same reason I use any other term: to convey ideas through common understandings.
It's just doing what Google wants you to do.
Why the fuck would Google care what words you use?
It means downloading not from the internet but from another device.
Google wants it to mean installing software they don't condone, but I don't see why the rest of us should follow their lead. I don't know anyone who calls installing from FDroid "sideloading"
The words people use influences public opinion and the bottom line of corporations such as Ford and Google.
If there is a functional difference, then why can't you say what the difference is? You continue to refuse to do so BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE. All you're doing is installing an app. The only thing that changes is where the app comes from and if your corporate overlords approve of it's origin. So again, what fundamental difference does it make where the app comes from?
My brother in Christ, you’re literally the one splitting hairs…that’s the opposite of what I’m doing.
I'm saying they're the same. You're saying these two things that are functionally identical are fundamentally different. In what conceivable way am I splitting hairs?
I literally just did, twice. If you're just going to submit angry replies without actually reading the comments then this discussion is doomed, so good day.
The words for distinguishing between apps that come from one trusted location vs others is usually untrusted or unverified apps versus trusted or verified ones. "Installing apps from outside the default app store" converts to, "Installing an untrusted app".
The same word that I use to when I get software that's not on the Microsoft Store, the Mac App Store, or whatever distro's Software GUI when I am using my desktop..
Why? That's a perfect example. There is no qualitative difrence between Microsoft Store and Play Store. Why quantitative difference in the market share would make any distinction in the terminology we use around the process?
So when I install an app from Fdroid, it's only "installing" if lots of other people do it? But if other people don't use it as much it's "sideloading"?
When I install software from the Arch User Repository I still just call it installing, even though it isn't through the standard path. Everywhere else, you don't make the distinction. For some reason on phones we've come to call it sideloading, even though the software is just software —it doesn't care where it came from.
Again, when I install something from the AUR (which is not where most software comes from —99+% are from official repositories) it isn't given a special term. It's the exact same situation as "sideloading" but we just call it installing. Can you explain what the difference is between them?
Wow, you're frustrating. If using an unofficial source for applications is called sideloading, why isn't that term used for desktop computing? The term only exists for phones. The AUR is an unofficial user-run source and is equivalent to a source other than the play/apple store. If that term was actually useful or needed we call installing applications from the AUR sideloading, but we don't. Clearly the term has no real utility besides making it sound like something you shouldn't do.
Yes they are! That's what I'm saying. 99% of apps aren't coming from the AUR. Why don't we call it sideloading, if it were actually a term that were needed?
Same thing. 99% of apps are coming from official repositories. A tiny fraction are coming from non-official sources, like the AUR. It should be called sideloading if the term actually had a technical need. Obviously your reasoning that we need the term is wrong. No one feels the need for it on desktop. What's different about mobile?
even within android, if you attempt to install an apk directly, it doesn't say "would you like to sideload this application?", but instead says, "Do you want to install this app?".
Even Google's own OS doesn't use made up language.
When you install a '.exe' file in Windows, you don't call it 'sideloading', you call it 'downloading and installing'.
This is the exact same thing. I download from sites, F-Droid, Obtainium, etc., and install the software that is the file I downloaded. I'm effectively NOT side-anything.
The issue people have with making the distinction is that Google is trying to spin the narrative and make side loading seem like a dangerous and bad thing to the average user base who don't know any better.
They're taking umbrage with you agreeing that quantitative usage of a storefront makes something simply installing vs side loading a program. Because it helps Google's narrative in a way.
I understand exactly what people think the issue is. I don't understand or agree with any of the logic. Google did not invent the term. Apple did not invent the term. There's nothing in the term itself to imply anything nefarious. It's nothing but a word used to describe apps installed from outside the default store. When 99-100% of users are all installing exclusively from the default store, it makes sense to have a term that describes that instead of saying "installing apps from outside the default app store" every time.
Google is twisting the word to justify their purpose of preventing people from installing anything that isn't from their walled garden. So anything that sounds even close to support for that motive is going to be met with pushback, even if it is a word that existed before Google's use of it. Google's implicitly saying that installing something from anywhere other than their store is something nefarious or otherwise bad/risky. Google is trying to perform the same kind of security theatre as the US with the NSA at airports.
Honestly, it doesn't matter to me where you install an app from because you're simply installing it. Whether that's from Google's storefront, Apple's, or somewhere else, you're installing an app. The circumstances where I'd need a term to specifically say that I'm installing an app from outside the default app store would also be covered by simply saying "I got it from GitHub (or wherever)." It takes the same energy to answer the question of where you got it from regardless of whether you say that you installed it or you side loaded it.
By justifying getting rid of it as "security concerns". This is the first time the average user will have heard the term, so it will be linked in their head to this and therefore as risky/dangerous and they won't question why Google would want to make it harder, if not impossible, for people to install apps or other software without Google's explicit permission.
The walls around the garden get taller, and those inside won't question why there aren't any doors.
By justifying getting rid of it as "security concerns".
That has absolutely nothing to do with what you said. What you said is that they were "twisting the word". Once again, they're using it in exactly the way it is intended to be used.
So it's always had a negative connotation to it? Because that's what I'm saying. That Google is using the word by its correct definition, but adding to the original definition a subtext that side loading is a bad thing. Hence, they're twisting it from its original meaning to a negative connotation to the average person (who has never heard the word before).
It's like Windows' UAC popping up with a warning when you try to install just about anything. To the average computer illiterate person, they're going to second guess whatever they're installing as "dangerous" while the rest of us are like "shut up Windows, of course I want to install the Nvidia drivers, that's why I clicked on the damn thing."
I will concede that the corporate use of 'sideloading' is bypassing the official store, but if you look at the other examples you'll see that it is not the only usage. I think it is important to frame installing software as just that.
Installing software from outside the play store should be called installing software. It's installing software from the play store what should have a special name, like "gatedloading" for example.
In what way is installing from the play store fundamentally different? Just because it was preloaded on your phone? What if F droid was preloaded on your phone instead? Is it still sideloading? Google's logic breaks down pretty quickly when you think about it
Yes, but littering used to be a legitimately big problem to. Like the hole in the ozone, now that it's "solved"/ the norm for it to be getting better the focus should shift to other things.
why can google not just code something like this into android:
allow apps from: ( ) All sources (how it is now; allow each app to install apps from external sources) ( ) Just Google Play ( ) Apps which have been verified by Google Developer Program
Taking Google at their word for a moment, it's far too easy to scam the clueless masses into selecting the first one. Might work okay if it's strictly an ADB command, tho.
I'm inclined to think that's not the job of an OS vendor to prevent. Sure, put a warning label on it, but it's the user's device; once they say they know what they're doing, that should be that.
The implication here is, if they implement this, is that they volunteer to assume liability, should e.g., your bank account be drained despite undergoing their forced strict lockdown on paid and owned devices.
Fat chance, because laws are meaningless to crime syndicates
It might be a reasonable trade for users to make if Google assumed liability. In fact, that would be an interesting way to implement laws to discourage practices like these.
If someone can be socially engineered into disabling security mechanisms, then that should just be their fate. There's no sense in fucking everyone else in order to protect them.
If Google wanted to add developer verification without being evil, it could use SSL certificates connected to domain names. I think the whole concept is ill-conceived, though I'll admit to a modest bias against protecting people from themselves.
They couldn't. Domains and SSL certificates can be obtained very easily anonymously and thus wouldn't let Google identify the developers of malicious apps, which is the goal of this
The trouble is Google’s definition of malicious apps. Are adblockers malicious? How about alternative apps for YouTube? Based on the recent history, I don’t think you will be able to install those apps on the phone you purchased.
So any APK I download will just expire at some point in time that's probably really annoying to know, and then I have to dig through the internet again so I can install the app again?
If it's anything like how Windows does it, you would still be able to override it. It just gives you a scary warning and hides the option unless you click "more info" or something.
Which nullifies the point of certificates having an expiration date (limited window for exploiting a compromised certificate, possibility of domains changing hands), not the point of validating the signature (tie responsibility for apps to who owned a domain on a specific date, allow third parties to create blacklists of bad developers).
Code signing certificates work a little differently than SSL certificates. A timestamp is included in the signature so the certificate only needs to be valid at the time of signing. The executable will remain valid forever, even if the certificate later expires. (This is how it works on Windows)
Doesn't work, the reason they can expire is to make certificate rotation possible. If an expired ssl certificate is cracked it doesn't matter because no browser will accept the expired certificate, with your idea the expired certificate just signs an app with the date of 1984 and it works.
Certificates in SSL can't change the date because that date is signed by a certificate higher in the hierarchy.
This isn't "my idea", this is how the industry already does code signing. You can't sign something with a date of 1984 because your certificate has a start and end date, and is usually only valid for 1 year.
Then you need a Trusted Third Party, right? Still requires some though on how to prevent that third party from blocking applications they don't like but I can see how a group of trusted authorities could work.
The trusted 3rd party in this case is actually multiple 3rd parties. There's several options for trusted timestamping just like there's multiple trusted root CAs for SSL. Since the timestamping service is free and public, anyone can use it to sign anything, even self-signed certificates. There's no mechanism to deny access, at least for this portion.
There's always a risk the root CAs all collude and refuse to give out certificates to people they don't like, but at least so far this hasn't been a problem. I don't have a better solution unfortunately. If we could have a 100% decentralized signing scheme that would be ideal, but I have no idea how you would build such a thing without identity verification and some inherit trust in the system
I'm not sure why google is over engineering this, proper mainline distros have this solved since forever. Let the community setup trusted repos with gpg keys, then let me trust the repos. If Fdroid trusts the package and I trust Fdroid, who should care?
Ding ding ding ding ding. It's so obvious, it's because Google wants to be in control and block apps it would rather not exist. Newpipe, FreeTube, Revanced and the like.
Then why aren't they already doing that by blocking DuckDuckGo?
The DuckDuckGo app blocks all apps from sending to Google (and other advertisers) tracking/ad data on a system level. And it's freely available on the Play Store (has been for years.
Blokada 5 blocks ads in apps and it was removed from the google store years ago. You have to sideload it in order to use it.
There's a neutered version on the google store, but it doesn't block ads effectively.
Google also removed an addon called Adnauseam, which clicked ads in additional to blocking them. That way, advertisers still have to pay site owners for your visit. Google removed it without justifiable reason, then kept it removed since there was no sufficient backlash.
It's the main reason why I switched to Firefox. That kind of abuse is for useful idiots.
I honestly think that this is just not going to happen. It's already a giant pain in the ass to install apps from anywhere else than Play Store. With Shizuku it got much, much better.
What kind of apps are you installing? I've never ever had any issue with installing APKs on Samsung, you just have to allow the app that triggered it to install APKs one time and every subsequent time, it just works.
In some regions, afaik, you just CANNOT install certain apps without adb, this in my experience includes: KDEConnect, Fdroid, Newpipe...etc. The list changes time to time.
Pixel 8a on stock here. I have no idea what @Hawk is talking about. I just install any app, that I want. I might had to alter some settings, to do it, but I don't remember doing that.
GrapheneOS patches this behavior if apps match their Google play signature IIRC. This is a behavior that apps on the play store can opt into (basically they block operation if they aren't installed via Play).
It was rather annoying until recently, since some apps require you to be on a certified Android install to find them in the Play store, but don't actually check play integrity in the app. These apps when installed via Aurora wouldn't work for me until Graphene patched this.
AAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh, ok, say no more. Samsung used to be much easier to work around and they're really joining the "lock it down!" club lately.
But you can't shop at Target with some random app, only the Target app. Even a small business has an accessible pathway to publish their app. Besides Fortnite and my gimbal nobody out here trying to educate customers on how to install their apk file.
They mean a physical Target store, not a phone app. Target can track customers walking in and out the door and what they buy, how long they stay, etc. but they can't track anything about you if you just go to a different store, especially something like a small business which isn't hooked into the ad data sponge.
Also if the CEO of target decides he really doesn't like a popular shirt and is able to force everyone to only shop at target, then he can come a lot closer to snuffing out the existence of that shirt.
This is actually worse than integration in Play Protect which can be disabled very easily. Now you can only install unsigned apps via ADB which means just developers can do it.
I believe I got a notification that it disables NFC payments when developer mode is enabled. Which I know not as many people use it in the U.S. but some do.
Although you are correct, you still don't have to be a developer to find use in ADB. I've used it and I've never been interested enough in developing for Android to do more than install the SDK for it once.
Leaving ADB open to unverified apps is more than I was expecting. ADB is reasonably straightforward to use even without actually being an Android developer.
There was never any way they'd integrate it to play protect and still allow play protect to be disabled. I prefer this to being required to use play protect personally, though the services do seem somewhat redundant. Presumably the whole point of doing this is to create an Apple style walled garden (which is of course very profitable). Google likely doesn't want to fully lock it down and risk legal trouble, they just need to make it difficult enough that the masses don't bother installing unapproved apps that may not act in Google's interests.
I still hope the EU takes legal action against this anyway.
I don't think this adds anything tbh as peoppe with adb would always be able to bypass this. The issue is that this kills distribution and thats exactly what Google wants - have full competitive control. Once they don't like your app they'll block your account and what do you do with your customer base? Give them adb install instructions? That's basically a death sentence for any app.
they always do this to gaslight us into accepting things we would not. when blocking installs from outside gplay is a possibility, further restricting it is a relief, not the outrage it should still be.
that or they got a feel for it and decided to settle with less restriction. for now.
the permanent solution as always is deposing them from this position of enormous power and monopoly. easy said.
So a lot of speculation and we don't know much except 2 paragraphs in the FAQ... I'd like to mention though, they've recently stripped the Pixel devices of their status as developer devices and now push for their emulator for development. Once they follow that kind of logic, there isn't really a reason to keep ADB working as is, at least not on real devices.
Under the proposal, the US would take control after "voluntary" relocation of Palestinians from the strip, where proposed projects include an Elon Musk Smart Manufacturing Zone and Gaza Trump Riviera & Islands.
Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.
Trump Admin Circulating Plan to Transform Depopulated Gaza Into High-Tech Cash Cow
Under the proposal, the US would take control after "voluntary" relocation of Palestinians from the strip, where proposed projects include an Elon Musk Smart Manufacturing Zone and Gaza Trump Riviera & Islands.
Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.
Under the proposal, the US would take control after "voluntary" relocation of Palestinians from the strip, where proposed projects include an Elon Musk Smart Manufacturing Zone and Gaza Trump Riviera & Islands.
There once was a guy who wanted to depopulate large parts of eastern Europe and transform them into something he called living space - which was supposed to be his cash and grain cow.
Goodness... I thought it was just one of trump's social media pundits spouting nonsense, maybe with an AI-generated image or two, but this is serious. That I hate America and Israel at this point goes without saying, but I hate any country or politician that closes their eyes to what these nations have become.
You really need to read the article, but here is a lengthy quote regardless:
The GREAT Trust was drafted by some of the same Israelis behind the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), whose aid distribution points in Gaza have been the sites of deliberate massacres and other incidents in which thousands of aid-seeking Palestinians have been killed or wounded.
According to the Post, financial modeling for the GREAT Trust proposal "was done by a team working at the time for the Boston Consulting Group"—which played a key role in creating GHF. BCG told the Post that the firm did not approve work on the trust plan, and that two senior partners who led the financial modeling were subsequently terminated.
The GREAT Trust envisions "a US-led multirlateral custodianship" lasting a decade or longer and leading to "a reformed Palestinian self-governance after Gaza is "demilitarized and de-radicalized."
However, to journalist Hala Jaber, the plan amounts to "genocide packaged as real estate."
any government/company involved in this project should be tried for crimes against humanity. Dipshit Trump probably plans to build some more casinos there which he can bankrupt.
Take one of the most violently-contested parts of the Earth, a center of blood feuds that have been raging for, depending on how you count it, between eighty and six thousand years, a place that has become synonymous for "a location of endless conflict," take that piece of real estate, enhance the violence, and then tell yourself you're going to build a bunch of high-end condos and invite rich assholes to move in.
The land now known as Israel, including Gaza and the West Bank, is their homeland. These people are refugees because they were driven out of their homes during the violent formation of Israel in 1948 and many of those who survived ended up in refugee camps in Gaza. Gaza is one small corner of their homeland. Over the course of 70 years or so, these refugee camps became entire cities because these people had nowhere else to live, for generations. So they were refugees in a small corner of the country that was once theirs. Then Israel destroyed even these cities.
At JUPITER’s inauguration ceremony in Jülich, attended by Germany Chancellor Friedrich Merz, the Jülich Supercomputing Centre and NVIDIA unveiled ways the supercomputer is already spurring innovation across the world.
At JUPITER’s inauguration ceremony in Jülich, attended by Germany Chancellor Friedrich Merz, the Jülich Supercomputing Centre and NVIDIA unveiled ways the supercomputer is already spurring innovation across the world.
At JUPITER’s inauguration ceremony in Jülich, attended by Germany Chancellor Friedrich Merz, the Jülich Supercomputing Centre and NVIDIA unveiled ways the supercomputer is already spurring innovation across the world.
At JUPITER’s inauguration ceremony in Jülich, attended by Germany Chancellor Friedrich Merz, the Jülich Supercomputing Centre and NVIDIA unveiled ways the supercomputer is already spurring innovation across the world.
Fuck GOOG for normalizing surveillance capitalism Fuck YouTube in particular for making it basically impossible to usefully host an Invidious proxy any more and for their algorithmic manipulation
A big problem with peertube is monetization. There should be some sort of mechanism that'd do that automatically. Otherwise there won't be much content ever. Don't get me wrong, I'm really happy that it exists but just don't see it replacing even few % of YouTube as it is.
If you want monetization and scalability, you're gonna have to get ads. Ad-free subscription services that actually benefit the creators are exceedingly rare. Very few people (less than 0.1%) are "making it" on Patreon and the like. The bitter truth is that most users can't afford to financially support their favorite creators, and damn near zero creators could get the level of exposure needed to be sustainable without an ad-based platform backing them.
Video hosting is expensive af. Ultimately, small-time content creation is completely dependent on corporate benefactors. This is why every video platform that's tried to compete against YouTube has failed. Nebula is trying, but that's only useful to creators who fit within its specific niche.
I'm not saying this as a vote of support for the current system. Just an observation of how the market has played out so far.
That is correct. Though I guess that there aren't more than 0.1% on yt that are "making it". You just don't see the vids that got 5 views since 2004 or the millions of ppl that so dread to be someone yet never gain traction.
Ad-free subscription services that actually benefit the creators are exceedingly rare.
Believe it or not, YouTube Premium is one of them. A Premium view is worth more than an ad-supported view to a creator.
(Obviously Patreon is better, as they can’t make a living off of only Premium views because it’s a smaller group; the population of ad-supported users is much much larger. But YouTube Premium does benefit the creators more than ad-supported YouTube does.)
No, and neither has anybody else. Not saying that to be rude or dismissive, but just using their own numbers on the front page to paint a picture. They have ~3,000 paying members as of right now. Patreon has over 10,000,000 paying members, and even then only a tiny, tiny fraction of their creators are actually sustainable.
Paid subscription services like this are a great idea, in theory; I'd love to get away from ad-supported platforms. But the truth is that they just don't work for all but a few lucky people.
YT also has a "tiny, tiny fraction" of creators that make a living there. There are many, but there are also gargantuan numbers of people never going beyond a handfull views because they can't reach their audience without paying or LUCK. No saying you're wrong though.
That's 100% true, but YT also foots the bill that creators would otherwise be responsible for when it comes to just the basics. Free hosting/distribution of high res full-length videos, globally accessible, with a player app that is actively developed and maintained, a recommendation algorithm to put your content in front of viewers' eyes... That, alone, has tremendous value for a creator that they really can't get anywhere else without paying out of pocket. All of those things would have to otherwise be paid for/maintained by the creators. While it's not a direct payment, YT relieves a huge burden for creators.
It sucks because it keeps creators' success dependent on corporate oligarchs. But at the same time, it's also great because it gives them a fighting chance to get started.
True, yes. But there's also vimeo and the federated services like (forgot the name because I rarely consume any video anywhere). It's not just YouTube. People just use it because they don't know the others or just want to be famous (for reasons beyond me but that's besides the point)
And you know when exactly YouTube went total ape-shit? The moment people could earn some meager bucks. Then shitty content flooded the whole platform until it was full of crap and actual good content got harder and harder to find in that pile of "you might wanna see this" Nowadays i see the frontpage, sigh in disgust and close the page. And I haven't even seen an ad there yet. This would be the cherry on top
Shallow content comes from trying to manipulate the recommendations algorithm and "go viral". Without a recommendations algorithm, the incentive disappears.
Well fuck. It never crossed my mind that YouTube would do this since I don’t view it the same as other traditional streaming services. This will really suck for my friends who I’ve happily let mooch off my plan for years.
You pay a scammer to scam you and wonder why you get scammed? Their course was clear the moment they ditched their slogan "don't be evil". And here we are, again.
GTK. I think they flagged my account since I share it with my spouse and some of my basic features disappeared recently like mini-player in the browser. I might need to unsubscribe and just rely on Firefox with an ad blocker. Nebula and Patreon are good alternatives as well.
uBlock Origin is also available on iOS/iPadOS but only through the Orion browser. It would be nice if other browsers figured out how to allow Firefox extensions too but so far it looks to just be Orion.
I'm not sure how Orion gets away with it, but Apple has been deadset against allowing other browsers to exist on their platform, Chrome, Edge, and Firefox on iOS are just a Safari wrapper. This strongly limits what they can offer for extensions. The only people who own Apple phones is Apple, everyone else is just renting.
uBO Lite (uBOL) is a reliable and efficient content blocker.
The default ruleset corresponds to uBlock Origin's default filterset:
- uBlock Origin's built-in filter lists
- EasyList
- EasyPrivacy
- Peter Lowe’s Ad and tracking server list
You can…
I’ll test out Safari + uBO for a bit and see if I prefer it. Do you have any sites you can check for how good your adblocker is? I used to use one but that was ages ago, I don’t remember the name anymore.
Top web search results for “adblock test”—the top two, both, are usually good to both run (though I’ve never been too scientific about it)! One tries to show ads for your review, the other gives a % blocked.
I have a hot take. I pretty much exclusively watch YouTube as my form of TV entertainment. On most days, I watch many hours between putting something on to go to sleep or actually watching stuff in the day such as training courses or whatever. Sure, I could easily set up my TVs and devices to work around it, but I think it's actually worth it to just pay for Premium and not have the hassle. I feel I get more than my fair share out of it.
I'm similar - and my kids even more so. As they only watch YouTube on the main TV it's a pain to get alternate frontends on it I also like the fact there are no ads. I think the creators get a bigger cut per premium view Vs ad views, especially if they get blocked.
The price is too high for a subscription. For that price I could get thousands of movies on a competing service like Netflix.
Even if you take YouTube premium they are still farming your data and selling it to third parties.
So even if I watch a ton of YT I refuse to pay to sell my data.
If I pay for YT they have to not track me and not sell my data (at least data coming from YT).
So yeah taking YT is hassle free but is quite the scam if you think about it. Before paying you were the product. After paying you are still the product but on top of that you give them money.
Your second point is specifically the reason I don't pay for Premium. I would actually really like to but unless there is some kind of guarantee they won't be double dipping, I'm not going to.
I think the price is a far better deal than Netflix. Even when I had Netflix, basically all I watched was Breaking Bad. Shows I like or want to view now just live on my media server. It came to a point I couldn't find anything interesting to watch and cancelled it. I don't remember the last time I watched an actual movie. There is so much more than I'll ever have the time to watch on Youtube. If they want to use what I watch to attempt to show me ads I'm very likely never going to see elsewhere, I honestly don't care. They are going to try to show me ads which will almost certainly get blocked, anyway. I'm not watching anything on Youtube I wouldn't mind telling anyone about anyway.
I don't feel scammed, and it impacts my day-to-day life in no ways aside from saving me time having to fiddle with my network for 30 minutes every time an actual video won't load because I'm trying to block a 30-second ad at the router.
Netflix also sells data to 3rd party marketing services.
I honestly wouldn't mind paying for it if it didn't feel like such a fucking rip-off.
For example, for £19 a month I could sub to Netflix top tier. For that, I and three others could watch their stuff in UHD, all at the same time. And sure, Netflix content might be somewhat average these days, but it's still reasonably high quality and costs a decent packet to produce.
By contrast, YT Premium for family is £20 a month, with which I can access a bunch of videos that, while enjoyable, do not cost Google anything to make. Yes, hosting costs money, and yes, they (theoretically) pay the video creators. But it doesn't feel like £20 a month, y'know?
Part of the trouble is that they lump YT Music in to the same subscription. But I don't want or need that. I have Apple Music with its lossless catalogue, and library that I've built up over many years. If YT offered a straight up ad-free plan that I could share with my family that cost a tenner a month, I'd probably go for it. It would mean being able to watch videos on Apple TV without having to fuck about downloading them to my Plex folder first, because they've injected SO MANY ADVERTS in now that the YT app is completely unusable.
It’s too expensive agreed. However YouTube has a lot of discounted memberships through other services. I wouldn’t pay full price for it, but through my mobile phone company I get more than 50% off and that’s a bloody great deal.
Run a personal VPN server at the home address and have external users route through it. I'd think it'd work for any subscription service doing this crap. I'm surprised nobody has started selling a turnkey self-hosted VPN device that even a non-techie can get running in a few steps - all the end users would need is an app that does split tunneling for the media players.
If you pay, the platform remains great. I get a discounted YouTube premium membership through my mobile phone company. I think YouTube is great, I never see ads, lots of features.
It’s a product. You can buy it or not. If you don’t think it’s worth it, stay away, or stay on the free tier. You’re acting as if you’ve got some kind of right to use a service that’s provided by a commercial entity.
and it's a multi-billion dollar corporation, that already makes more money than you or I will ever see in our lifetimes, that actively strives to make the user experience worse for people who don't pay, when they've got a practical monopoly in the "free video sharing platform" market. And you're whiteknighting for them. 🤡
more money than you or I will ever see in our lifetimes
I mean, I feel like you need to expand your comparison a little as the amount that you'll see in your lifetime is such a minute grain of sand on a beech compared to corporate profits. The money they made today, hell, in the last hour... minute... will dwarf the amount that you will likely see.
actively strives to make the user experience worse for people who don't pay
And evidently those who do! My parents live in a different country. What are they, not my family? What's the family plan for? (Rhetorical question)
With Vanced I have so many more options to customize my experience. I can hide shorts I never watch, set a fixed resolution for data and wifi, return the stupid dislike ratio they removed... And if I'm using Vanced anyway to fix all the issues they introduce, why on earth would I additionally pay for their service?
I want to pay for their shit, especially to support content creators, but I can't support a platform whose singular mission it is to make everything worse for everyone constantly. Feels like every month I have to get a new extension to undo some horrible design decision.
was a weak-ass criticism when it was on 4chan being leveled at anyone who said anything not derogatory about a woman, and it's weak-ass now. Oh no, someone on the internet has an at-least-partially positive opinion of a company, how awful, we'd better stereotype and body-shame them for it.
If you had your way, the only comments about YouTube - or any other product from a large company - that would be allowed would be negative ones. How the fuck does that make sense?
You are missing something. Multiple things actually. * most content isn't uploaded by the copyright holder (e.g. TV excerpts) * demonetized videos will still have ads (at least for people without ad blockers) * videos are used for machine learning without credit to authors or financial compensation (especially without consent when it's not the copyright holder uploading them)
I'll join you in the downvotes. There's many reasons to hate YouTube. Asking them to pay for video content to everyone for free is a bit silly.
I'm also not saying you shouldn't use alternatives or run an ad-blocker. Those are cool. I just find it funny how someone is saying: "I get some benefit in paying for this service" results in such backlash, lol.
I'm willing to sacrifice some of my valuable internet points here and be down voted to low hell.
I was going to make a comment along those lines.
They are, at the core, an ad company. Their motivation is to make money, and we are free to pay or not pay for their services.
The idea that we have a right to a non essential product for free is entitlement. They make a shit load of money, but also pay money to most content creators. Could they provide a service where they essentially just pay for costs? Sure, but no for profit Corp is going to do that, it has to make money somehow. While I'm all for peer tube, I really don't know if it's sustainable.
I wonder how many of the people who demand free access to services donate to FOSS Development.
Maybe some form of consumer co-op, where users essentially pay for operating costs, could be an option.
Not allowing ISPs to pick and choose winners among web services is absolutely what Net Neutrality is about. Bundling or discounting subscriptions isn't technically the same thing as zero-rating, but the end result of making a particular ISP-preferred service cheaper than alternatives is the same.
You're just trying to piggyback on a vaguely-related concept that your audience already likely hates. Call things what they are, not what would be convenient to you if they were.
You mean removing sponsor led segments inside a video? Sort of. The jump ahead feature, which I think is a premium feature, allows you to jump in the video based on where everywhere else is jumping in the video. So when a sponsored segment starts and you skip forward 30s (double tap on mobile, ‘k’ on PC) you are offered to jump ahead. You click that and you get to the end of the sponsored segment.
I'm OK with your opinion and I appreciate hearing an alternate view to offset the echo chamber effect.
But for a lot of us, or at least me, its far deeper than just cost and ads.
It's the fact that steps keep being taken to make the platform worse. They don't want the platform usable unless you pay, and in this case they're even taking a stab at the people who pay...you don't pay enough in their mind.
If they had balls, they would just make it a closed platform. Pay to access, and restrict that per account IP. But they'd rather gaslight everybody and slowly turn up he heat so the frogs don't jump out of the pot. This way they maximize their profits for longer. Point of all of that is, they don't care about he platform or service at all.
For me, its not even about that. Their algorithm was so jacked up I was sick of being fed videos I didn't want to see over and over, and videos I've already watched over and over. That's why they added the subscription bell...because you would subscribe to things you wanted to watch and they never showed it to you. It wasn't "you" tube it was "their" tube.
I bailed on them years ago. I still watch some content on there because there really isn't a viable alternative. I use a scraper that gives me a feed of just what I want and without ads. I watch what I like and move on with my day. I'm back in control of my video viewing.
Weird number of downvotes here -- I thought they were meant for low-effort or non contributive comments, not an "I disagree" button. This person is giving a unique perspective as a subscriber (in this thread, anyway) and should be met with curiosity, I think. It is helpful to know that there are people who enjoy paying for it, so thanks for giving your opinion here.
I disagree because they have a dominant position for reasons other than having a good product -- they squash competition trying to make the space better while themselves actively making it worse. Subscribing means supporting that style of inhibiting innovation, not to mention the other user-hostile practices they embrace (extend, extinguish). They are an ad company and obligated to make a profit, I get that, but I refuse to abide this style of using investor money to operate at a loss for years while deceptively capturing the market before raising prices. If your product is good, it shouldn't need to be artificially propped up.
but I refuse to abide this style of using investor money to operate at a loss for years while deceptively capturing the market before raising prices.
Indeed, no company should be praised or rewarded for emulating the moves that made companies like Walmart and Amazon big.
This capitalist hellscape would be slightly more tolerable if there was ample competition in every space. Companies need to be motivated to make their profit in ways that please the consumer, but also in ways that are increasingly more ethical.
But truly, as they say, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Modern slavery and third-world exploitation...even literal child slavery are rampant in our supply chains and offshore manufacturing.
Even Google indirectly uses child slavery. The court threw the case raised against them (and other giants) out last year because these companies simply purchase "unspecified amounts" of cobalt through "global supply chains" - never mind how it came to be on the global supply chain to begin with and how much obscene profit these companies make off these resources.
Deactivated Premium recently. I used their music app when driving – expecting some ads now - nope, it just doesn’t allow running in the background anymore.
Seems like such a hostile thing - I’d like to think running ads would be a positive net income for them. (Now that I think of it - maybe they don’t have it built out into their music service.)
Makes me long for the days of google music. It just worked. Streamed stuff and even allowed you to stream your own library that you had stored in drive. I would use that in the car. Then they ditched it for YouTube music, which was a worse experience and lacked the features.
It's always nice when the garbage takes itself out. And if you're inconvenienced, I feel for you, but the writing has been on the wall for years. They will keep trying to suck more money out of you every way they can until you cancel your subscription, and because that's going to happen in the end, why not cancel it today.
How are they able to tell if you are in a different household ? If the user use different VPNs then it shouldn't be able to tell the different between that and being in different locations. So are they gathering internal network data, are they spying on the LAN and wifi ?
Your browser sends more data than you want it to. And if it's a specific app you're talking about, they can do whatever they want and spy you dry. There's a reason every shitty shit wants you to install their app instead of just using their fucking webpage, which already sucks enough.
Meanwhile I installed the User Agent Switcher extension for firefox to change my user agent every 30 seconds to something random to avoid tracking. A few websites don’t accept it. I just quit those websites and find a non-billionaire-owned alternative like Kagi or Fastmail. So far it’s working out well.
That likely makes you easier to track. User agents don't really matter all that much if an advanced tracking script is used. When your IP address is the same, your browser engine is the same, your canvas data stays the same, your window size stays the same, your operating system stays the same, then they will just know that you also use an extension that makes your user agent not reflect your system and track you based on that too.
Use Mullvad Browser without changing anything important (change the default search engine at most) and preferably use a proper VPN to actually avoid tracking during regular internet usage. Or use LibreWolf to at least fool naive scripts.
Try a different VPN server if you get the "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot" error. If you're using Mullvad VPN, the Netherlands Amsterdam 203 server should work.
How is that easier? That’s just only very slightly harder, not easier. Most sites will not have such sophisticated logic. And anyway, the purpose is to suss out which websites do this kind of tracking and avoid them entirely, not to thwart the tracking.
Technically, yes, most sites won't have such sophisticated logic. But any Google, Microsoft, or Meta service you use most definitely will.
I really liked CreepJS's "Visits" feature where it would show a counter for how many people have visited with exactly the same browser fingerprint (which would usually be 1 unless you were using Tor Browser or Mullvad Browser), but they seem to have removed it for some reason along with "Lies" and "Trust Score". You can still check it out here though to see just how much identifying information even a simple hobby project can gather in less than a second.
Easier said than done. My parents are the main reason I haven't, it's just easier to pay monthly than it is to fix their mistakes when they fuck up the things I try to setup.
it's because Youtube is a content monopoly. TikTok is a platform for short content...on youtube it's a feature with shorts. Twitch is a platform for live streaming content...on youtube it's a feature with, other than discoverability, the same features. Any music streaming service? again...it's a feature on youtube. The fact I could export my playlists from any music streaming platform and import it to Youtube and listen to it ad free via an ad blocker? come on. So as opposed to using multiple platforms, with youtube you have it all in one place. So no, this will not get people to stop using it.
Premium you don't need if you're even the slightest bit tech savvy. but no one is ever going to stop using youtube, there's no point. I mean I use peertube as much as possible but every now and then I'm back on youtube because of all those features in one place and some things I just can't find on peertube.
Why pay for premium anyway? Let alone a family plan. You still get ads. They can be skipped too — SponsorBlock will do it for free. Google could use this but chooses not to.
They want YouTube to be like cable TV. You pay for it. You watch ads. You pay more for premium channels.
I found a neat little workaround that I used for a while. I’d load the video up in my browser, turn the phone on an off a couple times, press play on the lock screen, and enjoy it that way.
Edit:
Still works. Just gotta full screen the video and then power off before it kills picture in picture.
And now I’m listening in the background as I type this.
Download Video Background Play Fix for Firefox. Some sites may not work with Firefox for Android video background play feature. This add-on provides a quick fix by blocking the Page Visibility API and the Fullscreen API.
Most certainly off-topic, but I have found other cool workarounds for apps.
For instance, if you open 2 windows of, say, PowerPoint (1 you want to use, the other you must close after; read below). Then, go to the one you don't want to use (or at least one you use for this method), and wait for the no account/Office not bought/whatever pop up; in any case, do NOT close the pop up. Open the other PowerPoint, and then close the former. If done right, you'll be pleasantly surprised that it works perfectly! After that, you can open any additional ppt files. Do note that, after you close PowerPoint entirely, you gotta do this all over again.
Youtube doesn't let you download the videos directly. If they did, you'd be right. The fact that the original yt-dl was shut down by Youtube kinda disproves your point all by itself.
In-video sponsors are not even remotely the same thing as the ads YouTube puts on videos, but that being said no I’m not using SponsorBlock. YouTube premium has a button to skip in-video sponsors so I don’t need sponsor block.
I pay for it, also no ads except the sponsor plugs, which are pretty easy to skip. Overall a better experience than the non premium. I don't live in the USA so my cost is like $5/month.
The three people who replied before you said they don't get the sponsor plugs.
When I had YTP (I had a trial, it was like 3 months for $1), I got the sponsored segments. So either those other people are lying, or they don't understand what I'm saying.
same here, but even I'm looking to cancel both to avoid supporting a US company and because they're making my experience worse by having a shitty user experience
I've never seen a single youtube ad with uBlock Origin. SponsorBlock takes care of most of the sponsored segments that a premium youtube account won't get rid of.
I pay for premium because currently it's the easier option for getting no Ads on all my devices. Yes I could install a third party client on my TV, Phone & use uBlock on Desktop, but two of those require active upkeep.
YouTube Music is included.
For sponsorships, YouTube Premium has the "Skip Ahead" feature which basically leeches off sponsorblock users where commonly skipped sections can be also skipped by you.
It's just currently easier to pay than to pirate. I will say however, if it gets too shitty, I will resort back to pirating.
This will be like Netflix pushing against shared accounts, sure it will work and their revenue will go up, but I will stop being a paying customer and will only watch videos from my notebook with adblocks.
I cancelled Netflix when they did the sharing bullshit and I cancelled prime when they wanted MORE money to not give me ads. Fuck that.
However, you and I seem to be in the minority since these mega corps push one bullshit after another and people just bend over and go "please use lube this time..."
YT Premium recently updated their terms to include a provision requiring that the majority of your use be from your home country. YT saw how everyone sucked the Netflix teat when they killed sharing, and now they want a piece too.
If you watch vapid slop content on Youtube, that's on you. Don't blame Youtube for giving you what you apparently want. I watch howto's, "edutainment", science and engineering stuff, conference talks, and overall generally positive, helpful content. This is a totally different thing from Netflix, which is mostly just fiction. I'd never pay a subscription for that. The cost of Premium seems like a fair value for what I get out of it, especially since creators get a higher payout for Premium views.
Yeah, Google still tracks you. So does absolutely everyone else, including your ISP that you're paying for. Until you make it illegal, that isn't going to change. I'm not going to put everything on hold waiting for better consumer protection laws, shit's way too dysfunctional for that to be realistic. Life isn't perfect.
Peertube needs monetization and the ability for people peer without self-hosting. A torrent client of sorts.
The product, in it's current form cannot replace Youtube. Youtube gives you traffic, a free place to host even your crappiest footage, and money if enough people start watching it regularly.
Peertube isn't free, it's just someone else footing the bill, which breaks under load.
highly likely that many videos will quickly die as well
Ideally, everyone would just post their own stuff from their own disk. As things got popular, the fans would cache it for others. We'd just need the self-hosting angels to help us with discoverability.
Realistically, a quick death is probably a fortunate way to save resources if a video can't gain traction from being useful or entertaining.
You mentioned with the number of dead torrents that videos would die quickly.
I mentioned that unpopular videos probably should die quickly.
You mentioned that the solution won't work I suspect your definition of not working is probably different than my definition of not working. But I'm not exactly sure at this point.
By suggest the peeeing app, I'm also suggesting a change to the architecture then I've talked about previously, probably have not made clear here.
The peering app works more like a torrent client. It's not just caching things that you've seen, but you can also place your content there.
We would separate the content from the indexing. A peer tube provider could offer both roles. People could store their own data locally or pay the provider a small amount to use their storage. Maybe even IPFS style that would just pin it for you for a fee. It would make the model sustainable.
Everyone is responsible for their own seed content that way. Nobody is required to pay millions of dollars to store a bunch of bullshit for nothing that they don't care about, which would end up making what monetization that can happen more effective.
Advertisers are just pouring billions of dollars into YouTube. They could have direct payments to smaller providers much easier without all that waste. We just need a sustainable storage method in a way for people to get paid.
ff+ubo+privacy badger (ff on my distro suggested privacy badger, can't remember exact number but when ubo blocks over ~1k privacy badger has like 2 - 4 on it, surprising me a little there are not more trackers) on pc, my phone has no adblocking atm and I know their info on me is wrong because all I do see are gambling ads and I have never gone to a gambling site, I don't even get the scam game ads my gf does on her phone. One day I may try out one of the "delete my dam info" places just to see how much they really have on me
I keep trying to convert my friends to using Firefox mobile for this reason. I generally try not to evangelise too much, but I have so many friends who keep complaining about ads when browsing the internet on mobile, and this would literally solve their problem. One friend complained about ads so frequently that they ended up getting irked at me telling them the problem was solvable. Our unhappy compromise was that I would stop telling them to use Firefox and uBO if they stopped complaining about this so much in front of me.
I respect their choices, but by God, I'm baffled by them. I get that inertia makes it hard to make switches like this, but when you're spending so much time complaining about how much effort it takes to use the internet on your mobile, why would you not just solve the problem?
I had someone say "Well, yours doesn't do ads" and, in the year of 5 manufacturers pumping out 10 different SKUs a year, we had the same model phone.
I said "Yours doesn't have to, if you set it up that way."
The answer? "Well, c'mon, play the video."
Like, yeah, let's just brush past the... What? Five or six tap solution? And before anyone asks, not a romantic opening. Generally people don't make passes at bridge trolls who evangelize for open source software.
I really wanted to like and use Peertube more, but it's so devoid of any content aside from political podcasts, as far as I can tell. I can't tell if the search function is bad, or I'm using it wrong, or there really is just that little content. Any recommendations for Peertube content?
They've had such trouble even selling YouTube premium that now they're making it even less worthwhile, and expecting people to still buy it...
I don't know what companies don't get. Family means so many different things and they're trying to dictate and control what it means to be a family. They don't get to decide that. Many people I consider to be family, have zero blood relation to me, but they've stood by me like brothers and sisters when shit goes down, often staying to help long after my blood relatives, have abandoned me. The people I share a bloodline with are simply not as much of a family to me as these people I grew up with, and have stuck with me through thick and thin.
If I buy a "family" plan of anything, I expect that the family I've chosen can be among the people I can share that plan with. If I'm paying for a personal plan and sharing it with others, I get it, fair game. But if I'm specifically buying it because I can share it with family, then let me share it with family, or fuck the fuck off with that bullshit.
Sorry, bit of a rant, I know everyone here already knows this so I'm preaching to the choir.
Meh. Growing up through the 90s makes be resilient and not even the slightest concerned about crap like this. I leave my device on the couch, go outside and enjoy life as I once had before greedy technology.
Meanwhile on Steam my "family" consists of 3 adults with different addresses, last names, and credit cards, who have had accounts for decades and never lived at the same place.
Sure, the 2 constants in the universe are Entropy and Enshitification. When Steam turns to shit I'll go back to Piracy just like I did when Netflix went to shit.
My point is that companies don't have to be shit about account sharing and family plans, and people don't have to accept it.
It's mostly that a feature on it went from "okayish" to "far more consumer-friendly", which was incredibly unexpected of them to do. Everyone figured Steam library sharing would die but instead they roll out Family that has far looser restrictions than the system they'd had for over a decade.
Can't play the same game at the same time unless both own it, and DLC isn't shared, but my partner being able to play anything I own that I'm not playing is pretty rad of a positive change.
That's the old way of handling it. (And I think it still works.) They have a new implementation that's just the family group admin sending an invite and the recipient accepting.
I had that error a couple of times, and it inexplicably resolved itself. Try having the person join again (which may require a new invite). I think only 1 out of 4 members of my family were able to join without that initial error message. This was back when Steam had just switched how they handled family sharing, so I assumed it was just an implementation bug of some sort. One of my friends took three attempts before they could join, but it worked ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Though I will note that steam family sharing no longer works if the person is located in another country for the purposes of Steam billing region (so my Norwegian friend could not join my UK family)
Man I hope he lives to a 100 at least, why am I always late to the party, I learn about Limewire and it dies the next year, I get access to my sister's Netflix account and Netflix goes to shit, I'm finally able to afford a gaming laptop and buy Steam games and now I'm too busy and tired from work to play them and Gabe is getting older. I wish I could go back in time and do things differently
I'd tell myself to start investing my money and hit the gym, but I'm unemployed right now and I know once I'm employed again finding the time in this rat race is gonna be difficult but I'm gonna start valuing my time more seriously, I've uninstalled doom scroll apps like Instagram and I'm working on time blocking my tasks, hopefully that pays off
In the meantime, I recommend doing some exercise because that's something you can completely control your progress on. If you don't have a gym membership, body weight workouts are absolutely a thing you should check out.
I like Steam, I like that they aren't being dicks and treat users well. That said: billionaires are not your friend. There is no such thing as an ethical billionaire.
I just want this specific billionaire to continue to live because, unlike most billionaires, he's not making my life more difficult.
He's basically refused to let steam become enshittified. Other billionaires would have long ago succumb to the one that they serve, the almighty dollar, and done whatever they can to extract the most value from their user base. Enshittifying the platform in the process, and actively making my life worse.
So as far as I'm concerned, when it comes to billionaires, gaben is far from the worst.
I have a short list of billionaires that kinda fit into the category of: I don't mind that they exist.
There's a much longer list of billionaires that I'd like to see pushing up the daisies.
Not that I can, or would, do anything to make that happen. I just, wouldn't hate it if it happened.
It's pretty fantastic! In the past, you could share a library, and playing any game from that library would lock the entire library so others couldn't use it at the same time. Today, that is loosened up and is much nicer to use.
Pretty easy to know, in fact. Same way Netflix, Disney, or HBO knows. Same account, accessed simultaneously from two distinct IP addresses. Not really rocket surgery.
Yea. I mean, I pay for it right now because it’s easy and works on all my stuff but frankly they’re really making me weigh how much convenience really matters. This kinda behaviour’s pretty garbo.
I absolutely hate this stuff. My family doesn't live in the same house, but it doesn't mean we are not a family. My mother-in-law and sister-in-law just message us for the passwords when they want to stream something. None of us pay for youtube premium and it looks like I won't be.
The company is ending the program in favor of Amazon Family, which lets users share Prime benefits with another adult, but they must share the same address.
I really think corporations are starting to overplay their hands here. People don't need Prime as much as Amazon thinks they do, people don't need YouTube as much as Google thinks they do, and so on. Especially in the case of YT, yeah, turns out it's easy to compete when your service is free. But once it gets freemium enough, things like Peertube start to take a place on the optimal frontier. Right now Peertube only competes with YouTube if you're sensitive to the dimension of a service being centralized or not, most people don't give a shit about that. But the dimension of cost and ads? Enshittify YouTube too much and suddenly Peertube has its place for anyone who cares about money or time (i.e everyone).
And Prime? Don't think people won't start just going to stores again, or buying directly from producers. At least if I go to an actual website to buy my stuff I don't need to worry about getting ripped off by some drop-ship fake brand garbage.
People love their little conveniences and will try to hang on to them, sure...but I think this could really start to backfire if they push it much further.
Shipping is still free if orders are over $35. Add to cart, order when you have enough. Their 2 day shipping has become bs these days anyhow. "It's 2 days from when the order is processed." I bought the shit, money came out of my account, it's processed. I have made a legal exchange with the expectation that your mutli billion company can place an order and box shit near immediately from 50+ warehouses. I order in the morning, and you're telling me it took you 2 days to get that order with a preprinted label onto a truck?
This depends heavily where you are. In urban areas the one day and overnight options have expanded quite a bit, but seemingly at the expense of rural two day options.
I think it's important to keep expectations realistic though..
in the case of Youtube there are very few groups/companies/whatever that could keep up with that kind of bandwidth. Federation helps here but it's still a pretty niche thing for 99% of people who don't know/care and just want their social media/forum/video site to work.
Yeah no denying YouTube is particularly hard to replace, hence why there's been nary a competitor even after all this time. I think paying for server upkeep could be a model that ekes out a victory...it would be drastically cheaper to users, and would come without ads or any of that other annoying junk. Ultimately someone needs to pay the bills, so it's not like I even blame YouTube for making you choose between ads or subscriptions. It's just when they push it further than that, always further, forever further and further...
I've been using Nebula, and I dig it. It's owned by the creators and there's no algorithm. Only sucks you can't really share since it's all paywalled. They have a guest pass but the person has to sign up so I doubt people would bother.
I had recently heard about that service for the first time and I do think it's a good step forward. But like you said, being properly walled off is a big miss w.r.t the ideal vision of Internet culture. I think that's why I like the idea of server bill crowdfunding (same model that Lemmy instances use basically). Some people need to step up and pay for it, and once a threshold is reached, the content is publicly available for all. But it's not like the people who pay are martyrs, since of course if nobody pays then the thing is lost entirely.
For a video hosting service, I feel like paywalling features is a good compromise, too. Once the bills are covered, everyone gets to enjoy ad-free, unsponsored videos... something along those lines would be preferable, at least to me since I feel like the openness of the internet is a great component to what makes it such a special place. Not that I mind private internet spaces either. I think both are important. So I think Nebula has a place in my personal utopian internet landscape too lol
You have a few options: - be EU citizen and sideload a cracked YouTube (similar to vanced, but you need certificates on iOS which sucks) - pay for a dev account and sideload regardless of above - buy two apps: vinegar and AdGuard. AdGuard speaks for itself, vinegar is a tool that forces YouTube to use the html 5 player inside of safari and thus forcing it to your will
I know iPhones are hated here, but I saw the android will stop sideloading coming from a mile away. At least here in the eu apple can suck one and I can still sideload whatever I want
You can sideload up to three apps without a paid dev account, they just expire in 7 days. Use something like AltStore (or better yet SideStore) and you have an easy way to install and re-sign two other apps. They also have the ability to essentially “offload” apps so you can have more than two other sideloaded apps, but only two can be active at a time (other than the signing app)
Ahh classic, punishing paying costumers while pirates don't have to deal with any of this shit. I guess the beatings will continue until profits increase!
Yeah and you are also already paying for a set number of people that can use the account so why would it make a difference where they live? My brother is still my family even if we don't live in the same state. They didn't call it a household plan
They don't care about whether they live with you or not. It's about providing less service than what you're paying for. Like how mobile carriers say, "unlimited data*" -- *after 25GB, we [may] slow your connection speed to 256kbps. So this way, it's "5 accounts*" -- *they must physically live with you. So now you're paying for 5 accounts, where 3 or 4 of them technically are unusable.
Why? Money. Those other people who you would have shared with now need to get their own account(s). Suddenly, "profits are through the roof!" -- until the next big squeeze. At this point, Google is squeezing its customers like a dry tube of toothpaste.
Sure, it takes a bit of effort. But if you replace your routers with ones that have open-source firmware or actual workstations acting as gateway routers and running business-class open-source software, you can create a personal VPN between everyone involved that shows only one exit point to world+dog.
The trick is with ensuring that all YouTube stuff gets properly and comprehensively funnelled through this exit node - VPNs can easily leak data if not configured properly, and sometimes do so despite good configs - and implementing this even on other devices that require individual VPN connectivity (roaming, like phones).
Plus, having a mobile device’s VPN auto-recognize when it’s connected to a known good network, and have it automatically disable itself in favour of the VPN on that network, is not something that’s easy to do.
Finally, doing so without a high-quality, high-speed ISP plan can easily lead to an unusably slow VPN. The “mothership” exit node, in particular, would have to be gigabit or better - and symmetrical as well, so fibre and not cable - because it has both the node and connections to other homes and devices. If everyone started suckling the YouTube teat at the same time, things would likely slow down pretty fast on anything significantly less than a symmetrical gigabit connection.
Seems there is a market for spoofing specific IP addresses out there. What if they don't know you are not at home? I ha e no clue how any of this works...
You just install tailscale on a home computer, tell it it's an exit node. Install tailscale on your phone and your laptop and whatever other computers you have.
Stripe CEO Patrick Collison said stablecoins are gaining adoption because they offer businesses faster, cheaper and more reliable payments than traditional systems.
Yeah, a national bank will for sure do it in a transparent, nondiscriminatory way /s
You'll be able to only use it using a closed app requiring google play services, safety net and with an account linked to your identity. Which means that either all your transactions are public and undeniably linked to you, or the blockchain is not transparent and open to manipulation. And they will find a way to "prevent terrorism and protect children" by blocking certain accounts.
We are talking about stable coins, which is on a blockchain. The app is not important, as the stable coins would have to integrate will alot of paying options and banks.
If it is on the national bank to provide this service, we would actually get more transparency than today.
lmao. Why do you think the world is choosing crypto over banks? Apart from a few privacy coins it's completely transparent. Far more transparent than any central bank. And that's just talking about transparency...
Studies show that sociopaths and psychopaths are better fits for CEO roles.
If you look at it from a strictly financial angle, Patrick Collison would get really wealthy from a US annexation of Canada as his company would get access to the very lucrative and deregulated US market.
You need to have zero conscience to take the best strictly financial decisions for a company, with no regard for suffering or human life.
I'll argue that calling them unintelligent dismisses their capacity for harm.
CEOs tend to be intelligent, cold and calculated. They will take whatever decision it takes to maximize profit, with complete disregard for human life. Even when they seemingly echo conspiracy theories, they generally do it with the end goal of increasing profits by pushing some narrative, for example.
We need to understand and acknowledge that they know exactly what they are doing, and that they and their companies need to be controlled using legislation. They will not be swayed by pity and emotions, they must be controlled by other means.
So I've been reading into stable coins a lot, because I don't understand why anyone would care about them. And what I've come to realize is they are a benefit to two groups:
Financial institutions: Stablecoins have fewer regulations and basically allow for things you can't do with actual dollars/currency
People with limited access to financial institutions (think poorer people and/or countries): With fewer regulations it's easier for people to transact Stablecoins than dollars/currency
At the end of the day, it feels like a "true" digital currency would be the better solution, but everyones jumping on Stablecoins because they're here now and less regulated.
I think there is potential in a more cash-like digital currency, but Stablecoins seem ripe to break in some unforseen way, especially given the current administration.
it feels like a “true” digital currency would be the better solution,
For whom?
everyones jumping on Stablecoins because they’re here now and less regulated.
Yeah. Nobody wants to wait around for an imaginary solution from the state. Nobody really wants the state violently attacking their lives. So yeah cryptos are a much better choice for most people and institutions.
For your first question, I think the average person would benefit from a simple digital currency that let's them exchange "cash" without having to jump through a bunch of hoops. Venmo, Zelle, etc. are all proof that normal people want easy ways to pay each other.
As for your second point, I'm not sure I follow. But I assume you're implying that crypto is better because it isn't tied to the state?
Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff said the use of AI agents had enabled him to “rebalance” his headcount in the customer support division by trimming 4,000 jobs.
“I’ve reduced it from 9,000 head to about 5,000 because I need less heads,” Benioff said.
Benioff called the first eight months of 2025, during which an estimated [10,000 jobs have been lost to AI] “eight of the most exciting months of my career.”
“There were more than 100 million leads that we have not called back at Salesforce in the last 26 years because we have not had enough people,” Benioff said. “We just couldn’t call them back. But we now have an agentic sales that is calling back every person that contacts us.”
The use of AI agents — artificial intelligence systems that plan and automate tasks that typically required human employees in the past — has enabled Salesforce to call back around 10,000 leads a week, Benioff said.
Salesforce, which is the largest private employer in San Francisco, has around 76,000 employees globally.
He's a CEO that's practically the job description under late stage capitalism. That and being an amoral piece of shit that would happily grind up children if there were no consequences and it would earn them 1% more profit.
Farming and gardening robots for home, educational, and commercial use. Premium Hardware · Worldwide Shipping · Drag and Drop Farm Designer · Step-by-Step Assembly Instructions · Own Your Food
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is heading to Beijing by train on Tuesday to attend a military parade with his Chinese and Russian counterparts, North Korea’s state media reported. The event could demonstrate their potential three-way unity against the United States.
Kim and Russian President Vladimir Putin are among the 26 world leaders who’ll join Chinese President Xi Jinping to watch Wednesday’s massive military parade in Beijing that commemorates the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II and China’s fight against Japan’s wartime aggressions.
While the event would mark Kim’s first attendance of a major multilateral event during his 14-year rule, it would also be the first time for Kim, Xi and Putin, all key challengers of the U.S., to gather at the same venue. None of the leaders have confirmed a private trilateral meeting.
eezeebee
in reply to return2ozma • • •like this
Maeve, Endymion_Mallorn e NoneOfUrBusiness like this.
SGGeorwell
in reply to eezeebee • • •like this
Maeve e Endymion_Mallorn like this.
ohshit604
in reply to eezeebee • • •This certainly goes further back than you may think.
Barcelona protesters throw items and spray travelers with water while shouting ‘tourists go home’
Monica Pitrelli (CNBC)like this
Maeve, Endymion_Mallorn e NoneOfUrBusiness like this.
eezeebee
in reply to ohshit604 • • •And it's going up still, despite it being an issue before this year. It's interesting that there's still an increase despite the pushback.
like this
Endymion_Mallorn e NoneOfUrBusiness like this.
phutatorius
in reply to ohshit604 • • •That specific protest was on La Rambla, which has been completely blighted by unconstrained tourism and which has had continuing problems with young male drunk tourists harassing locals, loudly partying all night, preventing the neighbors from sleeping, and generally behaving like arseholes. I go to Barcelona frequently and as long you're not being a complete skidmark, the vast majority of locals don't mind. As a matter of principle, I never use AirBnB.
The bigger source of protests in Barcelona was the phenomenon of scumbag landlords evicting local people and then hiring out the places on AirBnB. That became a big local political issue. Whole neighborhoods were being strip-mined in that way.
WanderingThoughts
in reply to eezeebee • • •That's what's being reported. Tourisme to USA is down with 8% and everywhere else in the world it's going up. Europe is breaking records this year.
Then you have conferences and conventions that moved out of the USA. Lots of anecdotes of an empty Vegas strip, guides in cities cutting back, airports not that busy anymore, etc in part because Americans can afford less, places for greedy/private equity and foreigners staying away more.
And next year might be worse.
cub Gucci
in reply to return2ozma • • •Hmm... Maybe, just maybe, the problem is not the tourists, but ever increasing rent?
I remember the first years of Airbnb - met a ton of lovely hosts, lived in their abodes with them in the next room. BnB alike. Now, Airbnb provides "hotels" which are in direct competition with long term rentals.
This is not a tourist problem, never has been.
like this
Endymion_Mallorn likes this.
oni ᓚᘏᗢ
in reply to cub Gucci • • •Devolution
in reply to cub Gucci • • •Blaming who needs to be blamed is too much work. So let's blame tourists, immigrants, minorities, etc. Doesn't matter the country.
People are too fucking stupid and spineless to blame the rich.
like this
Endymion_Mallorn likes this.
Laser
in reply to Devolution • • •The difference is that tourists are not a somehow disadvantaged group. My livelihood isn't endangered because I can't go to a tourist spot in Spain somewhere without being heckled (though, when I actually was in Spain, everyone was nice, but Madrid isn't that much of a tourist spot compared to others).
Also, in some cases, it isn't "the rich" – I too love to point out the issues they cause – but sometimes, it's just ordinary people hoping to make a quick buck buying up property to rent it out on AirBNB. Yes, it's also rich foreigners getting property everywhere for themselves, which is a problem. But "the rich" don't bother with AirBNB, they just build hotels, and these normally don't compete with normal housing.
Devolution
in reply to Laser • • •ZILtoid1991
in reply to Devolution • • •Devolution
in reply to ZILtoid1991 • • •phutatorius
in reply to cub Gucci • • •Tourists are one source of the demand that drives up the rents. So yeah, they're part of the problem.
cub Gucci
in reply to phutatorius • • •A valid point. But how are you going to decrease the number of tourists?
Well, Bali authorities, for example, decided to decrease the number of tourists by allowing only wealthy tourists
asiatimes.com/2021/09/bali-wan…
businessinsider.com/tourist-vi…
euronews.com/travel/2025/02/27…
So, is your suggestion similar to this - allow only extra rich people to places like Vienna, Barcelona, and Bali?
Bali floats steep daily tourist tax amid concerns over mass tourism and unruly visitors
Craig Saueurs (Euronews.com)Cort
in reply to cub Gucci • • •cub Gucci
in reply to Cort • • •SoftestSapphic
in reply to return2ozma • • •