freddyym

The domain google.gi is still for sale, because it can only be purchased by people who live in Gibraltar.

See also, this post: https://tinyprojects.dev/posts/i_bought_netflix_dot_soy

Carissa Veliz is the best author when it comes to privacy, IMO. Brilliant article and brilliant book!

Signal is not the best option by any means. But it's so much better than most of the other options like Whatsapp or iMessage. It's all about threat models.

I agree with your first point, and hopefully you can see the changes in the current article. As for the second one, see a comment on the HN thread for the article [0]:

> It is unlikely that you truly have nothing to hide, but it is even more unlikely that every single person who has any influence over your life has nothing to hide. Protecting their privacy prevents exploitation that could hurt you too.

I probably should have used it in this article....

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21923548

Pretty much all of Doctorow's work is worth a read, as a matter of fact.

Ahh, yes that link is broken. Here is an archived version:

https://web.archive.org/web/20191224125253/https://write.pri...

Sorry if the post comes off as perfunctory, my last post on the topic had the opposite affect [1], so I tried to tone it down a little.

Also, as the author, I whole-heartedly recommend reading the aformentioned papers.

[1] https://lobste.rs/s/mrlfwh/why_privacy_matters_even_if_you_h...

Or, perhaps: "YOU don’t get to decide that you have nothing to hide when you give up your privacy."

Check PrivacyTools.io's recommendations.[1] Disclosure, I'm a team member there.

1. https://www.privacytools.io/software/productivity/

Interesting take, but I'd use librapay/fosspay or the Open Collective over the platforms that he recommends.

A similar thing happened when someone made did this promoting the YouTuber "PewDiePie"[1]

1. - https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/12/03/a-hac...

Ahh, thanks for clarifing. I've told the other team members.

Odd. As a team member, I can confirm that we (obviuosly) take privacy very seriously. This shouldn't have happened. Do you have a screenshot?

Betteridge's law of headlines states:

> "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

So no.

It's incredible what the power of good blog posts and social media management can do. These results are the proof!

> Somebody with the ability to pull off such a sophisticated attack would surely be above a low-income bitcoin scam. Personally, I think the scam is a mere cover-up for something much darker.

This. These bitcoin-type scams have around for ages and people are getting used to them. With this much power (aka number of accounts) why bother with such a low effort con. Though I don't like this talk as it fuels pointless conspiracy.

If only it was a higher percentage...

I'm all for analytics, as long as it is done in the most privacy respecting way possible.

To make matters worse, the site is using third party trackers, so your data is already being abused the second you open with the site. Its also closed source. I may sound paranoid, but I won't be using the service.

It's fairly similar.

> Nazis still exist

Sadly, they always will. There will always be people with ill intent in this world, because the world isn't perfect. However these neo-Nazis use free-speech to get a voice that they otherwise wouldn't have.

Considering the alternatives, such as mastodon, I don't see any need to support them. If I can use products that don't condone this sort of action then I probably will.

I completely agree with your first point. You've put it much better than me.

History is written by the winners, however, even if the Nazis had won the war, I think people would still understand that discrimination against any particular group is wrong. Who knows?

Censorship isn't something I stand for. However, in the UK I can be vocal about my opinions as long as I'm not harassing certain groups for no reason. Sure, thats censorship, but I can speak out against my government without showing hatred if they were to take the policy too far. Its a fine line.

You can label anything as hate. It doesn't take much for me to say your comment is full of hate (which it clearly isn't). If you understand what hate is then you can distinguish the two.

Hate speech, to me, is expressing hatred towards others, be it online or in person, with no reason or justification.

If you are willingly being spiteful or intending harm with no reasoning then this is hate.

There is a fine line that I should have talked about more, so I'm sorry.

> He doesn't define hate speech.

Hate speech, to me, is expressing hated towards others, be it online or in person, with no reason or justification. > Also saying that freedom of speech "is about being able to speak out against your governments without fear of oppression." is a very limited and US centric viewpoint.

Oddly enough, I'm a European, and I think this point is valid in any country. If you lived in China, you wouldn't speak out against the Government if they did something wrong like censor the doctors who discovered the virus. In other countries were there is free speech you can do this. Thats why there are organisations like Extinction Rebellion that speak out against Governments about climate change. In China, that couldn't happen. Extinction Rebellion doesn't shout hate towards people for not caring, rather they try to get action from politicians who can do something. This is the sort of thing that free speech should be used for. > soft-censorship feel-good policy

I am firmly against this sort of policy. Mass surveillance is the backdoor into freedom of speech. Censorship is bad, but, if you implement it correctly, then free speech will allow people to speak out against these "more authoritarian politicians".

I'm sorry that you disliked the article so much and thought that reading it was a waste of your life. In regards to the points you've made: > But what is hate speech?

Hate speech, to me, is expressing hated towards others, be it online or in person, with no reason or justification. > What is the line that you draw?

I dislike many things in this world. I dislike Nazis. I dislike people who discriminate against others for no reason. I dislike big companies like Google who sell users data and have unethical practices. I don't hate them though.

I think the line should be drawn when it goes beyond disliking someone/thing. When you actively seek arm against whatever it may be. > The author vaguely alludes lack of evidence

The Holocaust happened. There have been countless history books that have been both written and fact checked. Saying that it didn't happen because you sympathise with Nazis isn't ok. If there is evidence and proof that something happened an ideology shouldn't get in the way of it. An ideology also shouldn't allow you to slander a group of people because of it. > Are all lies hate speech?

Absolutely not, however, if there is historical evidence (in this case wether or not the holocaust happened) it seems so wrong to just deny it. Such atrocities should not be ignored for the sake of free speech. If we say that certain events never happened we might as well say that Americans never fought for free speech.

Personally I use BitWarden, though recently I've been looking into other options: https://masterpassword.app/

Tor is by far the best browser. However as a part of compartmentalisation I use un-googled chromium and right now it is struggling to install anything (others have this issue.)

While I like the concept, doesn't the fact that the site isn't using https defeat the purpose?

This seems like some sort of advert, and not something that we really want on HN. Seeing as your account is relatively new, and this is your first post, I would refrain from this kind of posting again.