251–260 of 506 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're taking about access you're afraid an extension might be exploited to expose versus ad networks and social media plugins that are known to expose. I'll take the potential bogeyman over the real one, thanks.
Since you missed it: theyre talking about extensions having access to portals where no ads exist
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I missed it, apparently. Link?
They banned people employed by sanctioned organisations from being maintainers. This one worked for a company making hardware for the Russian military. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41932225
The civil liberties you take for granted, in a major war, they will be gone. They will die in one day and it will take decades to get them back if ever. Remember that in WW2 America was throwing Japanese citizens into internment camps and the other side was doing far worse. Things that are unfathomable today but in a war with sufficiently high stakes they will happen again and more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"With software, either the users control the program, or the program controls the users." - Richard M. Stallman, 2011, writing in Der Spiegel He was right. He was always right. About all of it. People didn't listen, or perhaps were never introduced to his ideas. Software grew faster than the idea of free software (on some level this was inevitable, since the latter is by definition a subset of the former). And so, th…
You must have missed the other news this week. Linux has joined the dark side too. Banning people based on nationality is certainly against freedom and any kind of ethics worthy of being called that.
"Linux" is not banning anybody. They must comply with the sanctions against Putin regime that many governments in the world raised, in response to insane Putin's behavior.
Linux is not banning people based on nationality, is banning people based on their employers that is a different question. Linux has every right to ban somebody that would be working for a cartel, for example. This is a win-win for the people banned also, because protects them to be targeted and forced by the Russian regime to participate on war crimes.
Calling about "mafreedom!" and "your lack of ethics" just looks deranged and out of the reality. "mafreedom to kill you (and you must help me to build the bombs or are a very bad guy)" is preschool level material. Not even funny as a joke. They really think that we are so stupid?
> Linux lacks ethics
Since 2022 the Russian president is sending 1000 Russians a day to a sure death, could stop the carnage at any time, and couldn't care less about it. Most Russians support him and don't care also. I will not accept any lesson on ethics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I missed it, apparently. Link?
They banned people employed by sanctioned organisations from being maintainers. This one worked for a company making hardware for the Russian military. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41932225
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baikal_CPU#Bankruptcy
I'm not arguing for/against the exclusions due to sanctions. I think the benefit of banning people who used to work for a banned entity is minimal, but after all, if they are still using an email address provided by that sanctioned entity (alumni access?) of course they haven't disentangled themselves fully from that entity
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wonder what would be an effective countermeasure against stuff like this. Good, trustworthy governance. I think its childish to try and make an ungovernable internet. Nobody actually wants to live in an ungovernable world. We want fraudulent credit card charges to be reversable. We want the parents of the victims of Sandy Hook to be able to get alex jones to shut up. I don't think pushing further to make the law…
While I agree with you, I think it's inevitable that governments, maybe eventually all, will abuse the power they have to censor the internet. It is important that fraud charges can be reversed and people like Alex Jones shut up, but if the normal internet becomes too restricted and an alternative free one where crime is rampant is the only place to get a lot of information, that's where people will go. While I too w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're taking about access you're afraid an extension might be exploited to expose versus ad networks and social media plugins that are known to expose. I'll take the potential bogeyman over the real one, thanks.
Since you missed it: theyre talking about extensions having access to portals where no ads exist
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You must have missed the other news this week. Linux has joined the dark side too. Banning people based on nationality is certainly against freedom and any kind of ethics worthy of being called that.
> Linux has joined the dark side too. Banning people based on nationality "Linux" is not banning anybody. They must comply with the sanctions against Putin regime that many governments in the world raised, in response to insane Putin's behavior. Linux is not banning people based on nationality, is banning people based on their employers that is a different question. Linux has every right to ban somebody that would be…
Nonsense.
If your concern is that a maintainer might be strongarmed into getting surreptitious changes in the linux kernel, that's a misplaced concern because:
1- the maintainer in question didn't have access to approve changes across the whole linux kernel, but only on the drivers that they were maintaining (mainly Baikal electronics hardware, I assume. I.e. the Russian government could sabotage the drivers for hardware developed inside Russia itself, not exactly something that we'd truly have to worry about)
2- just because an individual, working in the open and with a clear/known identity (and association with a bankrupt Russian hardware design firm) has been excluded, it doesn't mean that a government might give up trying to sneak in changes. They can just create new personas (just like with "Jia Tan" of xz fame)
I understand that the Linux kernel got their hand forced, but this is just stopping a volunteer from contributing (and feeling welcome), in an open source project in which they had been involved for several years. It's a win for the Linux kernel (because they are not going to get a slap on their wrists), but it's not a win for the affected individuals
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If adblockers have a huge amount of access, then consider how much access ads themselves have. uBlock Origin is open source.
They have less access? When I visit my national healthcare website extensions can look at my traffic, but there are no ads. I'm not saying ad blockers are bad, but it's not like we didn't have extensions being subverted in the past.
Your observance of it is open source in the case of ublock. The list should still be scrutinized, it’s a local system with an unverified source. That’s all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Governments have ways of making themselves difficult to ignore.
Do they? What is the administrative division of governance in Liechtenstein? I don't know, and you might, but we mostly live blissfully unaware in the undergirding bueracracy that surrounds us. And if Liechtenstein calls for my head for saying that I know nothing about them, fantastic. I'll still never hear about it. The have no power where I am. But a government threatens an internationally beloved and fundamental i…