Re random IPs,

Sure, but my point is there is no such thing as a “truly random” IP address. You receive an IP from your ISP or VPN provider, that provider has a pool of IP addresses. Dynamic means you get one from the pool. Static means you get the one reserved for you, from a similar pool. The security/privacy benefits are nearly zero and not worth highlighting as an advantage.

Re static IP,

https://nordvpn.com/blog/static-ip-vs-dynamic-ip-address/ says,

Costly. Static addresses usually cost more for ISPs and consumers than dynamic IP addresses.

I really appreciate this post since I think many discussions about VPNs are misleading or treat them as a magic solution to all problems.

I think you’ve given a fair outline of what a VPN.

But, being the Internet, I have a few thoughts,

Hiding your IP address: VPNs will replace your IP address with a random IP address assigned by the VPN provider.

I don’t think the word “random” is needed. The IP address a VPN assigns is no more random than the IP address your ISP assigns. I think someone could see random and assume more security, which would be incorrect.

IP addresses are usually static, meaning it never changes, but sometimes your ISP may assign you a dynamic IP address, which will change every few months or so.

Last I knew ISPs still charged for static IP address, so most would be dynamic. Although often times a dynamic IP address is de facto static, since an ISP will never change it.

If you open up ports on your router (for various purposes), it can leave your network vulnerable to certain attacks as long as the attackers know your public IP address.

I think this should be a separate bullet point, since this is clearly security and not privacy. I think as a security point it needs further discussion. Really I imagine this only comes up in peer to peer connection scenarios. I don’t know if the denial of service attacks of old are still relevant.

Encrypting your traffic: VPNs can allow your traffic to be encrypted, so that your ISP or other people connected to the same network can’t see which sites you visit or (in some cases) what data is sent. The reasons why this is important are too long to list, but you can work it out on your own.

I think it’s important to clarify who you are encrypting your traffic from. Generally your traffic is already encrypted. DNS is often not encrypted.

I had good luck with https://www.wisetekmarket.com/

Of course any used laptop will be a toss up. I had good luck, I know others have, but it does come with a little bit of risk.

Enforcement is easy, if they post to Twitter they are a parody account. Everything ok there is a joke and not a good one.

I had to look up dynamic lock screens, but it looks like it just changes your wallpaper? That might be neat but doesn’t seem that exciting.

In terms of AI I’m not aware of anything AI on my phone.

Honestly I feel like phones have stagnated. I’ve had the “same” phone since 2016 (if not before). The fingerprint sensor, that’s probably the last thing that made me excited, was that 2016? Obviously screens have gotten better and battery life has gone up, but it’s the same phone.

I’d like to see ports added back to mainline phones. I’ve only ever bought a phone with a headphone jack so it makes my options limited. I’d like to see headphone jacks, SD cards & quickly replaceable batteries come back.

For posts, upvote means I want more of this, that’s some good content. Downvote means I want less of this, that’s some bad content.

For comments, upvote means good point, good joke, excellent addition to the conversation. Downvote means bad point, bad joke, poor addition to the conversation.

Now I admit I have a hard time upvoting a comment that adds a good point to the discussion, but I personally disagree with.

I do wish we had a way to separate good/bad content from agree/disagree. I know Reddit defaulted to hiding downvoted content, a default that I found reasonable. However using Lemmy, that wasn’t the default, and I’ve grown to prefer seeing all content. Don’t get me wrong, I see some garbage, and I see stuff I disagree with, but I think it’s useful.

Re verification per AP,

The amendments passed on Friday bolster privacy protections. Platforms would not be allowed to compel users to provide government-issued identity documents including passports or driver’s licenses, nor could they demand digital identification through a government system.

So it sounds like an ID will not be a requirement.

I suppose a face scan is possible, but I find it unlikely. Obviously if it heads in that direction then the law should be amended to clarify that is also not acceptable.

In terms of selling information I assume that just clarifies the status quo and isn’t new. Not that that makes it acceptable, it just means that’s something to tackle.

Oh I agree. I wouldn’t want a stronger law. I’m just not too concerned with this one. I think if there are concerns with social media we should discuss how to solve them for everyone.

We generally say 16-21 you are an adult so fuck it, whatever happens to you is your fault and ignore the predatory nature of organizations.

We should outline the specific concerns and determine what, if any, steps we can take.

As an example, gambling. I think it’s fair and reasonable to allow gambling. I think ensuring gambling isn’t predatory is a reasonable limitation. I expect for most people it isn’t a problem but I think providing help to gambling addicts is also reasonable. Social media should be viewed through a similar lens.

I mean YouTube has educational content, but that is far from its primary purpose. Assuming YouTube is completely unrestricted it wouldn’t be hard for Facebook to add enough content to be arguably educational.

Hell plenty of people use TikTok for educational reasons. I’m not saying it’s right, but you could argue TikTok is educational in the same way you can argue YouTube is educational.

Now if YouTube is forced to classify it’s educational content the same way they classify children’s content (aka poorly), maybe that’ll work.

the rules are expected to apply to the likes of Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok, per the Prime Minister.

Sites used for education, including YouTube, would be exempt, as are messaging apps like WhatsApp.

The law does not require users to upload government IDs as part of the verification process.

Sounds like a pretty weak law. It will require a birthday when creating an account and accounts under the age of 16 will be restricted/limited. As a result users (people under 16) will lie about their age.

Companies don’t like this because it messes with their data collection. If they collect data that proves an account is under 16 they will be required to make them limited/restricted. However they obviously collect this data already.

I wonder if Facebook and other apps will add/push education elements in order to become exempt.

Which, funnily, are probably the bots you’d be fine seeing.

Re turning off bot accounts, keep in mind labeled bots probably serve a specific purpose. So turning off bots can result in a poorer user experience.

For example I have bot accounts that post weekly discussion threads for TV shows or discussion threads for films.

If you turn off all bots then you’ll never see these discussion threads. (I’ve seen this happen, users starting a duplicate discussion thread because they hid all bot accounts.)

I would recommend blocking bot accounts you find annoying vs blocking all bots.

My understanding is that it’s the transfer clause he is focusing on. It’s just not clear to me that violating one part of the clause doesn’t bring the rest into question.

In the cases of POTUS, Tesla, SpaceX, etc it is certainly possible written permission has been given (although I agree not likely).

Classic not a lawyer but the terms of service say,

We give you a personal, worldwide, royalty-free, non-assignable and non-exclusive license to use the software provided to you as part of the Services. This license cannot be assigned, gifted, sold, shared or transferred in any other manner to any other individual or entity without X’s express written consent.

(Emphasis mine)

Twitter accounts are commonly shared by many individuals and I guarantee they do so without written consent. Does that invalidate/bring into question the whole clause or just the sharing part?

As a middle ground you can run a Debian Linux VM on ChomeOS, https://support.google.com/chromebook/answer/9145439

I use a Chromebook as my day to day machine and then pop open the VM if I want to do anything fancy/with Linux. It’s not perfect, but works well enough. You can even run Firefox if you prefer.

If Notepad is getting AI text editing then it’s as good as dead too.

Should you moderate like a bot? No.

I’m human, your human, the community is made up of humans. Act like a reasonable human, and yes, you get to define what is reasonable.

If bots could mod, we would just have them mod, but that would suck.

In terms of rule bending, if it’s in good faith then let it go. If you want to remind someone, that’s fine.

Diablo 2 also had an expansion… and balance patches… But I agree.

I have no way to put this gently: I cannot conclusively determine which one is more secure.

That’s the only conclusion I would have trusted. Otherwise you should have been awarded the tech equivalent of a Nobel Prize.

Security (and privacy) is not a zero sum game. That isn’t to say we shouldn’t discuss it. That isn’t to say we can’t point out clear advantages.

In any case, I appreciate the write up.

Link: The Faces of Evil, for the Philips CDi.

Considered one of the worst games ever.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link:_The_Faces_of_Evil_and_Zelda:_The_Wand_of_Gamelon