From the OG Guardian article:

“It’s only software developers and drug dealers who call people users,” Kosmyna mutters at one point, frustrated at AI companies’ determination to push their products on to the public before we fully understand the psychological and cognitive costs.

I disagree for a ton of reasons but what a great line.

Someone in ancient times carving a piece of art that’s a bear-man has virtually nothing to do with this:

Trying to link the two is disingenuous.

Linking anthropomorphized animals to furry culture is quite a stretch. Even old tribal cultures where they might wear animal skins/skulls for rituals doesn’t even really have much in common with what people are doing in fur suits today.

I was just wondering if my nose was getting larger.

I feel like fixing the current mess would require a pretty serious overhaul of the government but no one seems to be having that conversation.

Obviously the act of protest alone won’t do a thing. It’s a method for the people to express themselves and show those that may have power to make changes that they have popular support. A prosecutor, legislator, judge, or president going out on a lonely limb not knowing if they have support of the people is a risky position to be in.

Believe it or not, all governments (more or less) rule by consent of the people.

A truly open source (and functional) phone can’t come fast enough.

I mean, some parts of the protocols we use for the Internet need to be in the clear to work, DNS comes to mind. If you want that kept private as well you need to use something like tor.

Not really. We also have DNS over HTTPs, DNS over TLS, and DNSCrypt which are all becoming more popular. But that’s still application level data that I’m not really talking about.

But regardless, what people generally actually care about keeping secret is the content, not the protocol.

A lot of information can be gleaned from protocol metadata though. Source, destination, which applications are being used, maybe more depending on protocols. Not exactly information I want to be easily available to the public, but also not exactly critical either.

I should’ve been more clear, I didn’t mean the data, but at the protocol level it’s all open.

Same with the Internet traffic through these satellites.

“Generally, our users choose the encryption that they apply to their communications to suit their specific application or need,” says a spokesperson for SES, the parent company of Intelsat. “For SES’s inflight customers, for example, SES provides a public Wi-Fi hot spot connection similar to the public internet available at a coffee shop or hotel. On such public networks, user traffic would be encrypted when accessing a website via HTTPS/TLS or communicating using a virtual private network.”

Can’t decide the side of the fence I am on for this. Of course the vast majority of Internet traffic across the world is unencrypted. Anyone could be on the line between me and this Lemmy instance, just as they could if there was a satellite between us. However, you’re also broadcasting it to like 25% of the globe and not even making any kind of physical infrastructure efforts.

Quest can’t entirely guarantee nobody will snoop a fiber line, but they do bury them.

As much as I don’t want chatbots to explain to morons how to harm people, I don’t like that this just seems to be a form of censorship. If it’s not illegal to publish this information, why should it be censored via a chatbot interface?