Lenovo definitely deserves to be banned after that shit they pulled with the malicious root certificates.

That same description applies to downloading a zipped file.

Reminds me of the time I did roughly the same thing trying to get people to move away from internet explorer.

I won’t pretend that its popularity is in any way proportional to its quality, but I enjoyed it and so did many others so she must have done something right. Calling a work that many people enjoy trash just sounds a bit elitist to me.

Feel free to call the author whatever you want though, at this point I’ve no respect left for her.

Just so I got this clear, making it illegal to tell advertisers when their ads are running next to dangerous or illegal content is a freedom of speech win?

If the story of the garden of Eden is anything to go by I’d say that the creator definitely both made those things and very clearly instructed us not to use them. Either way if logic itself is evil then any logical argument cannot possibly apply to a purely good being.

Of course I’m in camp snake, I’m just playing divinity’s advocate.

Or logic is a blasphemy against god.

Please tell me someone thought about a switch to take them offline.

The reason they have to include the type of tech in the law is because that tech made it possible for unskilled bad actors to get on it

Yeah, and that’s the part I don’t like. If you can’t define why it’s bad without taking into account the skill level of the criminal then I’m not convinced it’s bad.

As you point out defamation is already illegal and deliberately spreading false information about someone with the intent to harm their reputation is obviously wrong and way easier to define.

And is that not why you consider a painting less ‘bad’? Because it couldn’t be misconstrued as evidence? Note that the act explicitly says a digital forgery should be considered a forgery even when it’s made abundantly clear that it’s not authentic.

Fair, but then this law serves no purpose. The thing it was designed to prevent was already illegal.

The worrying aspect of these laws are always that they focus too much on the method. This law claims to be about preventing a particular new technology, but then goes on to apply to all software.

And frankly if you need a clause about how someone is making fake pornography of someone then something is off. Something shouldn’t be illegal simply because it is easy.

Deepfakes shouldn’t be any more or less illegal than photos made of a doppelgänger or an extremely photorealistic painting (and does photorealism even matter? To the victims, I mean.). A good law should explain why those actions are illegal and when and not just restrict itself to applying solely to ‘technology’ and say oh if it only restricts technology then we should be all right.

Unless you use a digital pen.

Possibly, but as long as they are not completely server-side (which they can’t be, they want to target people) then they are fighting on hostile ground.

Of course there are attempts to lock down PCs so that ad companies can tell it what to do (probably with some DRM argument), but we’re not there yet.

Well the upside is that they’re not actually trying to get it to stop, they’re just making an effort to please their customers.

That doesn’t sound like much of a change from the situation right now.

Wouldn’t surprise me if that’s what sealed the deal for him.

I mean the deadlines are closing and having to fight to even stay in the race while president of the U.S. and recovering from an illness is not something anyone looks forward to.

Frankly I hope he can catch a break for a bit, and enjoy a pension after all this is over.

Use TOTP wherever possible. It’s standardized, and typically can be found somewhere if you keep digging hard enough.

Plenty of services push their own proprietary systems hard though. Looking at you M$

I am, no worries.

Using reverse proxies is common enough now that quite a few apps can deal with subpaths, and for the ones that can’t you can generally get nginx to rewrite the paths for you to make things work.

Put simply you just give every candidate points out of 10 and then elect the one with the highest average.

Approval voting (not acceptance, my mistake), simplifies things a bit by only allowing none or all points. Which is the best if you want to vote tactically anyway.

This method sidesteps a couple of the issues that Arrow’s impossibility theorem raises, and is easy enough to understand. Ranked choice is better than first past the post but still has the issue that adding an additional candidate can affect the end result in complex ways.

With approval voting most aspects are easy to understand. Adding or removing candidates trivially has no effect on the rest of the result. And while you can still vote tactically the only real tactic is where you put your cutoff, you should still vote for the option(s) you like best.