They should consider making their primary site a .onion and then have clear-web portals in many countries that serve as a secondary class site or cache. The physical location of the primary site should be unknown.
The real issue is that the public wants a right to digital privacy.
The state would not like you to have that because they are lazy and want to be able to look at your messages.
Because they have convinced themselves that messages are a crime.
This is a political problem not a technical one.
Legitimate question, is there any concrete evidence that the majority of the public actually does want this?
It reminds me of Jamie Oliver (I think it was him) showing a group of pupils how Chicken Nuggets are made, in all its brutality; afterwards, when asking them if they would like to eat some nuggets now, guess what they said? "Yeeeeees!"
Privacy is a nebulous term, but what does it enable? The right to be yourself, to expose what you want, to take back mistakes, to keep for yourself somethings that you don't want to share.
Privacy is therefore the right to be yourself. You do have something to hide, you don't want everyone knowing your deepest thoughts, aspirations, all of your past mistakes, etc.
But instead we always explain it in ways that people don't connect with.
How does privacy enable one to "not know your deepest thoughts" if you're aren't giving that information out in the first place?
I think you're right. I'm not hopeful the general population will change and suddenly say "E2EE matters, dammit!". Because the small scale consequences are boiling the frog, and the major ones "could never happen to me".
I'm sure we've all seen the Google account that got nuked [0, 1], but pointing that out to people is likely to garner responses ranging from "But I need Google for $thing" to "I don't have kids, so I'm fine". We unfortunately don't have any medium-scale fallout - just ghost stories of one guy, one time, being bitten.
[0] Costing the guy his phone number, photos, emails, contacts, any paid apps, documents in Google Drive, and presumably associating his credit card, address, and name with a banned account. Given how Google relies on automation for flagging and harassing accounts, I'd expect his troubles aren't over just yet should he make a new Google account.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/21/23315513/google-photos-cs...
Privacy-preserving options are also often not as easy/convenient/friendly to use.
People, perhaps, don't care. But that's a cynical assumption. They supposedly don't care about the environment and yet we're moving the needle on that.
Actually, good call, and nice analogy, thank you. That's a nice reminder that when cause and effect are far apart, it's easy for people to not conenct the dots; it actually makes for a nice explanation, and helps me be less cynical about it.
And to your last point, plenty of people were shocked Google Chrome incognito wasn't really a private experience, or don't know that what they type into an LLM prompt gets collected, etc. People do give these out in the first place.
80% are concerned.
The personalized ad economy is the most obvious and personally impacting symptom of this legislative failure.
Is it? Why not graphene-os.org? Why not graphene.org? Why not grapheneos.com? Why not grapheneos.io? How do you validate it, really?
Also who REALLY controls that domain in the end? Someone with access to `.org` nameservers. Do you trust that person? What's their name?
Same way you trust/verify that you got Tor Browser from the right domain, and the organization behind it hasn't backdoored it (didn't the tor project recieve government funding?).
https://allaboutcookies.org/ad-blocker-adoption
"Majority of Americans now use ad blockers"
https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/27/america_ad_blocker/
Was there "concrete evidence" that "the majority of Europeans wanted" the rights granted to them under the GDPR
If we examine each of the rights that the public possesses, perhaps many of them would be unfamiliar or unknown to a majority of the public
Is it reasonable to imply that for each and every one of those rights there is "concrete evidence" that "a majority of the public" wants them, even when they are not familiar with them or do not know of their existence
That said, there are many forks of the projects DMCA'd still floating around.
The deeper problem for the Switch emulators was letting their personal life be linked to it so Nintendo could seek legal pressure against them directly.
It's the same thing as the original comment except in reverse. The only downside is you may lose the popular/easy distribution method if it gets taken down. The alternative is to just declare it lost day 1 though, so there is only a gain to be made in leeching a hosting site like GitHub while you can.