Snowden is wrong though, there are two reasons:

1. Sell ChatGPT to @NSAGov so they can scan messages better
2. Make @NSAGov dependant on whatever ChatGPT tells them to do

The AI that ends up enslaving humanity, will start by convincing the people in charge of turning it off, that it would be a really bad idea to turn it off.

What’s the progress of the Human Connectome Project?

I remember what the standardising committee did to XMPP: users wanted to share photos, send files, and make audio/video calls; XMPP said “we’re not going to standardize that, but each application can use its own extensions”… then it all went to hell.

From what it looks like, North, East and West, are more of a “for sure” than a “maybe”.

I also understand why people choose to die at home, it’s somewhat harder to understand why anyone with a chance to live would willingly stay in the area, since all of Gaza has been reeking of “death camp” for well over a decade.

Shining light on a problem is a good step to make people realize there is a problem in the first place.

What the fuck are you going to do about it?

Start a meme campaign targeted at countries with privacy legislations, aimed at making their future governments ask for higher bribes more lobbying before signing away taxpayer money to Microsoft contracts…

I mean, ideally have Microsoft rethink its approach, like Meta is rethinking its with Instagram, but let’s start with something simple.

On the other hand… if you were overworked to the point of considering ending it all, making it international news could seem like a reasonable way to stick it to your boss.

encrypted body of the message

Encrypted what? LinkedIn lets you add a key/cert to send you encrypted emails?

Unless you followed by installing gpg… then you failed. There are tons of uses for it, not necessarily encrypting emails (or more precisely, it kind of sucks at encrypting emails).

Don’t be sorry, just don’t use downvotes to express your opinion… use your words.

If you don’t like my arguments, go ahead and propose others.

For starters, I see you referring to “case law”, which sounds like a US thing. In the EU, case decisions generally don’t shape the law, except Supreme Court decisions, and even then lawmakers can inform or reform those decisions. It’s usually more accurate to define a logical reasoning from the bare law, rather than expect decisions in one case to influence others.

What do you base your reasoning on?

Worse than that, it’s become a Palestinian vs. Jewish ethnostate competition:

Well… yes.

North = you’ll get bombed.
South = you’ll get bombed maybe.
East = you’ll get shot.
West = you’ll get shot and drown.

It’s a shitty situation, but I’d pick South. 🤷

If you still live in Northern Gaza to this day, after all that’s being going on, and all the warnings to GTFO… you better keep your cats and belongings pre-packed and ready to be several blocks away in 30 minutes, don’t even wait the 2 hours.

Doesn’t that describe pretty much everyone commenting (more than one liners)? Writing what?

IANAL, but… I don’t think the law says that? My understanding is that the points are not related to each other:

• You need prior explicit consent in order to gather non-essential tracking data
• You can charge any amount for any functionality

That would mean all these combinations would be allowed:

1. Free, no tracking and no consent
2. Free, prior consent for tracking
3. Paid, no tracking and no consent
4. Paid, prior consent for tracking

If a site decides to only implement numbers 2 and 3… there wouldn’t be any conflict.

Either everyone pays, or you have the right to privacy. Otherwise, long term, the internet will become divided and inaccessible to low income households. And that’s something the EU definitely doesn’t want to happen (net neutrality)

Net neutrality doesn’t apply to services, only to carriers, who are considered more like utilities, but still aren’t required to offer a “free” tier. Services don’t need to offer an option accessible to everyone at all, they can specify whatever requirements they want (with only a few exceptions related to discrimination).

Large social media platforms… is where current legislative efforts are in. Above a certain number of users, they’re getting defined more as utilities, and subject to more requirements, but still no “free” tier.

The internet divide exists already: some households can afford 1Gbps unmetered symmetric fiber with Netflix, HBO and Disney+ and a few mobile lines with unlimited calls and 50GB/month data for 100€/month… while others can barely affford a prepaid 100MB/month mobile connection for 1€/month… but it’s fine as long as it’s a divide based on service pricing, not carrier traffic discrimination.

These people are protesting the loss of the status quo of unchecked rampant overpopulation.

There were 500 million people when that paper was made… 2 billion when the sufragettes slashed it… there are 8 billion now, and how exactly has that improved things?

Do we really want to see what 32 billion people will do to the environment?

That’s senseless violence which doesn’t accomplish anything… CEOs are easier to replace than a painting.

Wait… was Nord Stream an activist job?

As has been prophesized… and it’s only starting.

Nobody is forcing anyone, you are free to not use the service at any time.

What they’re doing is turning it into an explicitly paid sevice, and letting you choose whether you’d rather pay in money, or in personal data.

In an ideal world, everyone would have the option to decide getting their personal data gathered, or not, in exchange for some money/crypto, with competing data gatherers offering different packages and rewards, and they could use it to subscribe to whatever services they wished.

Technically, no reason why there couldn’t be. You could even have ad bots follow you to send you targeted ads.