this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
680 points (99.9% liked)

Privacy

2011 readers
585 users here now

Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.

Rules

PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!

  1. Be civil and no prejudice
  2. Don't promote big-tech software
  3. No reposting of news that was already posted
  4. No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
  5. No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)

Related communities:

Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.

founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MajesticElevator@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I’ll never contribute to Wikipedia because they block VPNs

They should really unblock them. I know it’s not always easy to combat these problems, but a dedicated individual can break articles using non-VPN IPs like mobile data IPs

[–] MajesticElevator@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They not only enforce IP bans on account creation but on every single edit you make, even if logged in…

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 16 hours ago

It's not an open website at all. It severely privileges hegemonic editors promoting the status quo. Thus it's actually a right-wing website.

[–] Bonus@lemm.ee 24 points 1 day ago (9 children)

How is that defensible? Are there no laws to tamp down online terrorism from bad actors like Heritage? I'd imagine they're 100% in the wrong for making threats of any kind but I'm just a wee layman.

[–] ArsonButCute@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 day ago

The laws exist to protect bad actors like Heritage

Even if there was, look who's in power. Even if judges ruled against Heritage, I'm not holding my breath of them getting any sort of accountability.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

It's defensible because it's public record. Wikipedia has been doxing editors by default for decades. It's one way that they intimidate people from making edits.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Geodad@lemm.ee 3 points 1 day ago (3 children)

No laws? Sir/ma'am, we have the 2nd amendment. I can't think of any law higher.

[–] lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Too bad the 2A nutjobs and right wing nutjobs are the same people.

[–] Geodad@lemm.ee 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Once you go far enough left, you get your guns back...

[–] lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago

You're not wrong...

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The internet is, by nature, problematic in terms of legal compliance because it is not wholly under the jurisdiction of any singular country.

You can go after hardware physically located within your own jurisdiction, and you can go after operators under your jurisdiction. But if you start going after folks/hardware outside of that, you're rightfully going to be told to fuck off. (Which is why IP holders burn so much money on anti-piracy lobbying and get practically nowhere)

Its the same reason encryption bans are laughably idiotic.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] qevlarr@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago (11 children)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Owlboi@lemm.ee 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] neukenindekeuken@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago (6 children)

There's a lot of crimes happening nowadays by members of this administration. Add it to the pile.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 day ago

I imagine this has been underway since whenever that legal kerfluffle in India happened

[–] cyrano@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago (3 children)
[–] b_tr3e@feddit.org -2 points 1 day ago

Pshhh. You'll upset the Americans. They don't want filthy foreigners in their fediverse.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›