m0xEE

All posts Iska :emacs_thinking: :guix:'s posts Post Back to profile

@mangeurdenuage @Suiseiseki @iska
> Yeah because obviously continuing using proprietary software to not look paranoid worked so well on the population
Guess what? Not using it didn't work either! You know what actually made a difference? Making better alternatives available and informing people. "Not using" doesn't change anything at all, it only excludes you and diverts your attention from bigger picture to micromanaging your life without these things.

Like 23 Jul 2022 at 11:41 | Wall-to-wall | Open on social.librem.one

8 comments

m0xEE replied to m0xEE

@mangeurdenuage @Suiseiseki @iska
> It's already the case in some countries but:
That is right. It wasn't "Not using" that made MS remove IE in EU edition of Windows. And we have these nice "Reject all" buttons on nearly every website not because we were "not using". Firefox didn't appear out of thin air of "not using". Of course a lot more has to be done, but not having fun playing some game because it has some fscked up "anti-cheat" measures is not it.

23 Jul 2022 at 11:46 | Open on social.librem.one

mdn replied to m0xEE

@m0xee @Suiseiseki @iska
>And we have these nice "Reject all" buttons
Legal protection isn't direct protection.
You can't prove it works because you aren't the administrator of the server, and you don't/can't read the code that is injected in your web browser.
I agree that it's necessary to insure possible cohesion in groups yes, but they don't provide real direct protection, it's just a"just trust me, lol" move in the case of proprietary software.
And like I said earlier before laws are lobbied, if you have read the EU GDPR you must have seen that these rulings aren't effective as people think they are because there's a lot of loopholes in the said text, and besides loopholes most of the time when people reject their data usage it's for targeting commercial/marketing usage, not for AI analysis and the likes, which is also specified in the GDPR but not mandatory.

> because it has some fscked up "anti-cheat" measures is not it.
These anti cheat are actual backdoors to your computer, they filter and monitor want you can and can't do, how do you think they work ? That's what a DRM his.

Expand text...

23 Jul 2022 at 12:07 | Open on shitposter.club

m0xEE replied to mdn

@mangeurdenuage @Suiseiseki @iska
> they don't provide real direct protection
That's true! So both are important. My point was that not using proprietary solutions on its own is ineffective. You've got to have some alternative that's actually usable. And of course you've got to keep "tech" companies in line. Why do they even call them tech companies? Apple and MS at least sell tech, Google — to some extent. Facebook doesn't sell any tech, it sells your data, it's a surveillance company.

23 Jul 2022 at 12:19 | Open on social.librem.one

mdn replied to m0xEE

@m0xee @Suiseiseki @iska
>So both are important.
I agree. But you have to be pragmatic about it, one side you are sure that you are protected the other side is just a promise.

>that not using proprietary solutions on its own is ineffective
I disagree.

>You've got to have some alternative that's actually usable
And we have them.

>Apple and MS at least sell tech
They don't sell anything, when you read their EULA you will learn that they give you a temporary revocable authorization of usage of their Services as a software.

>to some extent. Facebook doesn't sell any tech
They provide a service free of charge in exchange of your private data.

>it's a surveillance company.
Same as Microsoft and Apple, like all proprietary software entities.

@m0xee @Suiseiseki @iska
>So both are important.
I agree. But you have to be pragmatic about it, one side you are sure that you are protected the other side is just a promise.

Expand text...

23 Jul 2022 at 12:25 | Open on shitposter.club

m0xEE replied to mdn

@mangeurdenuage @Suiseiseki @iska
> they give you a temporary revocable authorization of usage of their Services
Oh, I think they are different because they sell hardware 😂
Apple does, so does MS: Xbox and Surface things. For Google this part of their bussiness is near negligent, but they still have it. There were some talks of "Facebook-phone", but I believe it didn't come to fruition — so pure surveillance there.

23 Jul 2022 at 12:30 | Open on social.librem.one

mdn replied to m0xEE

@m0xee @Suiseiseki @iska
>Apple does, so does MS: Xbox and Surface things
It's the "intellectual property" of these entities as stated in the EULA you aren't allowed to go outside the box.
That doesn't mean people don't do it, but legally speaking you don't own it, you paid a for a physical object on which you legally have no rights beside a temporary revocable permit of usage.

@m0xee @Suiseiseki @iska
>Apple does, so does MS: Xbox and Surface things
It's the "intellectual property" of these entities as stated in the EULA you aren't allowed to go outside the box.

Expand text...

23 Jul 2022 at 12:33 | Open on shitposter.club

Iska :emacs_thinking: :guix: replied to m0xEE

@m0xee @mangeurdenuage @Suiseiseki

making better alternatives

The GNU/Linux desktop is already there. Office, pictures, music, printing and even device support have been in good state for years.
We only need to persuade people in joining.

Also, "alternatives" implies you'd want to give up your freedom in the first place...

23 Jul 2022 at 11:48 | Open on mstdn.starnix.network

mdn replied to Iska :emacs_thinking: :guix:

@iska @m0xee @Suiseiseki
>We only need to persuade people in joining.
There's also a need to have hardware manufacturers to release their drivers/firmwares under GPLv3.
Hardware support is getting harder and harder due to background agreements with microsoft, or other inane laws see:
https://media.libreplanet.org/mgoblin_media/media_entries/1529/144_7_gerwith.webm

@iska @m0xee @Suiseiseki
>We only need to persuade people in joining.
There's also a need to have hardware manufacturers to release their drivers/firmwares under GPLv3.

Expand text...

23 Jul 2022 at 12:10 | Open on shitposter.club