NOoooooooo :(

lemm.ee has been hands down my favourite instance, it’s genuinely depressing that it’s going.

It’s only just about functional and clunky as fuck. But if you want to get rid of WhatsApp from your device but still need to talk to someone in it then it’s a good shout.

Probably not. Back when the WhatsApp Pegasus vulnerability happened, there was a vector on iOS, but it was iMessages.

I don’t know any first hand details, but my suspicion is that the way WhatsApp on Android worked was via Facebook system apps bundled with the phone by the manufacturer. Back in the day, Facebook itself used to be a system app on some phones (making it difficult to remove), but gradually they moved away from that to having the Facebook or WhatsApp apps be the same as the one on Google Play, but there would be a separate system app that would be much harder to remove. I suspect this system app used various exploits for further data mining by Facebook (perhaps even gaining microphone access so they can present ads based on what you say?) and that the Pegasus hack got into WhatsApp, then simply called the system app to use its established exploits. One other thing that maybe points to this: the Pegasus hack would only sometimes be effective on Android phones, and researchers couldn’t pin down why. To me, that suggests some other app or configuration variation.

WhatsApp on iOS shouldn’t have this vector, as Apple control both software and hardware on their phones, hence why the strategy was to go for Apple apps directly (as they had the direct access to system level permissions, like I’m alleging Facebook sometimes had on Android).

Like I say, the exact workings of the hack are my own assumptions, and I understand that the WhatsApp Pegasus entry vector has been patched, but ultimately I don’t think Facebook/Meta or any of their apps are trustworthy and encourage people to remove them from their devices.

WhatsApp is the big one, that shit is a proven vulnerability. It was literally the vector for zero click access to Android devices in the Pegasus toolkit.

One way around it is to have a separate device for WhatsApp itself, then use WhatsApp4Web from F-Droid. It’s basically a web wrapper for the browser version of WhatsApp, but it does run somewhat independently of the main WhatsApp device (unlike eg Threema where the website won’t work unless the device has internet).

Swedes with banana, curry powder, and peanuts on pizza. Along with chicken and pineapple, all together.

Lol, you go and shit in someone’s house and then get upset that they kicked you out.

Thanks, yet another reason why my example was a bit off hah.

I said you came in to correct me but didn’t actually deliver any corrections. You just talked about the things you know.

I didn’t say the same thing you said, I provided the correction that you left out.

I dunno, allegedly people actually vote for a man named “Trump”.

Those same people are also the lead developers of lemmy.

Because of enshittification lol

It looks like you haven’t really digested anything of the conversation here before you came in to reply with corrections.

Not everywhere.

Previous rulings are a precedent in Common Law systems like the US, UK, Canada, or Australia.

Only Supreme Court rulings become a precedent in Civil Law systems like the EU, Russia,most of the rest of America.

Sure, but we’re talking about Brazil. You haven’t established whether Brazil is common or civil law. Also, we’re talking about a Supreme Court ruling.

Not all of the EU is civil law. Ireland and Cyprus both use common law systems.

While common law countries often have roots connected with the UK and are very similar, civil law countries are far more varied. Many civil law countries are distinctly different and arguably should be a separate class of legal structure - even ones with French roots (perhaps the most prominent civil law country).

Ultimately, though, the differences between civil and common law structures are almost entirely technical in nature. The end result is largely the same - in a common law country, case law can continue to be challenged until a Supreme Court ruling, and as such it isn’t really proper case law until such a ruling, just like in civil law countries.

https://guides.library.harvard.edu/law/brazil

Brazil is, in fact, a civil law country. However, they do follow case law from Supreme Court, which would make this ruling about requiring a representative valid case law. Which is what I said to OP.

The EU at its top level creates “Directives”

This is exactly what I said.

The EU made GDPR law (well, strictly speaking they made a directive, then member states make laws that must meet or exceed that directive)

The EU made a directive, this directive led to GDPR laws made by member states. However I was apparently mistaken, it wasn’t an EU Tribunal court case that led to cookie splash screens through case law, it was Recital 66 (lol Order 66), essentially a 2009 modification to the 2002 ePrivacy Directive, followed by roundtable discussions that heavily favoured the advertising industry over civil interest groups leading to its formal implementation into the directive in 2012.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/truth-behind-cookie-banners-alexander-hanff-cipp-e-cipt-fip-

To summarise:

• What I said at the start was right - Brazil’s Supreme Court ruling requiring social media companies to have representatives is valid case law.
• My example of cookie splash screens wasn’t ideal, but you did not give the right reasoning, or any reasoning - it was a poor analogy because it wasn’t a judge’s rulinig that modified the law but legal discussions that were prompted by public interest groups.

Like I say, it really feels like you didn’t read very far before you made your reply. Your comment reads more as a statement of tangentially related things you know with a thin veil disguising it as a correction. If you’d just made those statements without the veil, or if you’d followed through with the corrections and actually explained what was wrong, I don’t think I would have found your reply so objectionable (although I may also have woken up on the wrong side of the bed to your comment, sorry about that).

But then, I also wouldn’t have looked into the specifics of Brazilian law or the full origins of cookie splash screens, so thanks for the motivation lol.

Yes and no. It only really applies to Twitter/X and Twitter clones. You wouldn’t call a Facebook post a tweet, no matter how short, nor would you call a reddit or lemmy post/comment that.

And even then, Mastadon has its own term, toots, and BlueSky calls them skeets.

Until Twitter comes up with a new name in line with their new branding, I think the business should still be referred to as Twitter. But the business should go bankrupt before that happens, hopefully, the lenders need to call in their debts already.

They have at least moved away from the twitter.com URL, up until then it was hard to argue that it wasn’t still Twitter. However, until they come up with a new name for “tweets” I think the original name should still stand.

Law isn’t defined just by legislation, it is also defined by case law. A judge’s ruling on a previous case makes that ruling law.

Now, I’m not saying this ruling is appropriate - I simply don’t know enough about how it came to be. But if Brazil made laws about social media companies and then a judge made a ruling based on that law requiring social media companies have a representative, then that absolutely is valid law.

To draw an example, the EU never made a law about cookie splash screens. The EU made GDPR law (well, strictly speaking they made a directive, then member states make laws that must meet or exceed that directive), and then a judge interpreted that law and made it a requirement to have cookie splash screens. I would personally argue that the judge was trying to shove a square peg through a round hole there, when really he should have identified that data collection is in fact a secondary transaction hidden in the fine print (rather than an exchange of data for access to the service, this isn’t how the deal is presented to the user; the service is offered free of charge but the fine print says your data is surrendered free of charge), and he should have made it such that users get paid for the data that’s being collected. However, the judge’s ruling stands as law now.

If this is what I think it is, the hard drives are used data centre drives that are sold as “renewed”. They wipe the drives then use manufacturer’s tools to reset the clocks, effectively the same as winding back the mileage clock in a car. They are sold cheaper than new drives, but not really at a price that reflects their age and true used status.

I bought 4x 14TB drives of this type, pretty sure they were listed as new, although some show as used. 1 drive was DOA and I’m still waiting on the refund.

You can see tons of them on diskprices.com

Edit: oh wait, this is a different scam. This is like a combination of the classic size scam with the data centre scam. Fun!

It’s probably related to Amazon’s practice of binning all products with the same barcode together. So when someone sells something through Amazon their products get bundled with everyone else’s, and when someone buys they get one from the bundle. A counterfeiter basically poisons the stock, and you end up with counterfeiters selling legit products and legit sellers selling the counterfeit ones.

Craaaaaawling iiiiiin my skiiiiiin

Only about a day after I noticed it wasn’t playing videos for me anymore. The eternal game of whack a mole with Google carries on…

Gotcha. So really the only viable competition is Mozilla Firefox (+ forks) vs Google.

Google have too much say in how the internet is.