Mass surveillance and censorship are escalating in many countries right now. There is a global attack on secure encrypted communication. Often, authorities, politicians, and tech companies work together to push for new laws. One example: when Ashton Kutcher (yes, the actor), through his tech company Thorn, tried to introduce total surveillance of all EU citizens through undemocratic and corrupt methods.
First, Ashton Kutcher convinced the EU Commission that they could scan everything on an EU citizen’s phone or computer (messages, photos, emails, phone calls, all of it) for child sexual abuse material without, at the same time, looking at the content of other types of communication.
And then EU Commissioner Ylva Johansson presented the legislative proposal called Chat Control, which aimed to scan everything on all EU citizens' phones and computers (including conversations in end-to-end-encrypted messaging services). The message from the Commission was: we will only search for child sexual abuse material (CSAM).
And then experts from all over the world explained to her that the kind of scanning she was talking about (as Ylva described it: a drug-sniffing dog that can detect illegal content in a message without reading the message) simply cannot be done safely, and that Chat Control would mean the end of privacy and pose a security threat to all Europeans. Ylva responded with: “what about the children?”
And then it was revealed that Thorn, the organization founded by Ashton Kutcher and which had been lobbying for Chat Control from the beginning, was selling the kind of scanning technology that could be used for Chat Control – despite being registered as a charity organization in the EU’s lobbying registry.
And then it was revealed that Thorn, together with the EU Commission, had also started and funded “children’s rights organizations” that had supported the proposal. What appeared publicly to be charitable organizations were in fact lobby groups.
And then it was revealed that Europol wanted unlimited access and wanted to use the scanning for more than just child abuse crimes, saying that all data – also unfiltered and innocent material – should be stored because it “could at some point be useful to law enforcement”.
And then?
And then it was revealed that employees at Europol had joined Thorn, to lobby their old colleagues.
And then politicians in Brussels wanted to exempt themselves from the scanning.
And then?
And then the European Parliament, in an almost historic consensus, voted against the proposal and called Chat Control nothing but mass surveillance. As one of the members of the parliament said: “The Commission wasn’t focusing on protecting children but wanted mass surveillance.”
And then The Council of the EU (law proposals must go through both the Parliament and the Council), after three years of negotiation, finally reached a common position on Chat Control. The requirement for mandatory scanning (including end-to-end encrypted messaging services) was removed, which is a major victory, but several problematic elements remain in the Council's position. For instance, the Council wants to demand ID Control to use messaging services (including end-to-end encrypted).
And then, in 2026 the final negotiations began, between the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Council of the EU. At the same time, the European Commission is working on a Plan B, through the initiative Going Dark/ProtectEU, where they once again try to force total surveillance (this time organized crime is the excuse) on the citizens of the EU.
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
(feeling like a pop-trivia idiot - even though I started at the top witg mention of Ashton Kutcher, the ‘and then?’ you kept saying didn’t <click> until this last note. 10 out of 10.)
Grim, being supportive and respectful of Kutcher’s effort against human trafficking, but ‘oh, hell no’ at the intrusion and implausibility of this proposal.
This entry was edited (Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 8:37 PM)
That's the kind of laws you get - and you constantly fight against - when you don't have real accountability as is the case in the Europan Commission (and most top EU institutions)
The end game is where you want to do something legal but you still need to get permission in advance. You can't do anything without providing an acceptable justification for doing it.
Ik lees in de media dat u adviseert om het corona vaccin aan nóg minder mensen te geven dan vorig jaar. Het gaat nu alleen nog om 70 plussers, medische risicogroepen tussen 50 en 70, en daaronder alleen nog voor medische hóógrisicogroepen.
De griepprik-groep wordt niet eens meer genoemd.
Uw persbericht hierover is surreëel, zo niet hallucinant. Want uw verantwoording van deze beslissing leest juist als een verantwoording om de prik aan méér mensen te geven, in plaats van minder.
U zegt immers zelf dat de impact van covid op de bevolking nog altijd hoger is dan die van de griep. Toch krijgt de griepprikgroep geen coronaprik. Hoe dan?
Daarbij zwijgt u volkomen over long covid: een ziekte waar honderdduizenden mensen in Nederland aan lijden. Een groot deel van hen kan niet meer normaal werken. En hoewel gelukkig een groot deel uiteindelijk, na maanden of jaren, beter wordt, geldt dat vrijwel nooit voor één derde van hen: de ziekste groep, die hun huis of zelfs bed niet meer ui
... Show more...
Beste Gezondheidsraad
Ik lees in de media dat u adviseert om het corona vaccin aan nóg minder mensen te geven dan vorig jaar. Het gaat nu alleen nog om 70 plussers, medische risicogroepen tussen 50 en 70, en daaronder alleen nog voor medische hóógrisicogroepen.
De griepprik-groep wordt niet eens meer genoemd.
Uw persbericht hierover is surreëel, zo niet hallucinant. Want uw verantwoording van deze beslissing leest juist als een verantwoording om de prik aan méér mensen te geven, in plaats van minder.
U zegt immers zelf dat de impact van covid op de bevolking nog altijd hoger is dan die van de griep. Toch krijgt de griepprikgroep geen coronaprik. Hoe dan?
Daarbij zwijgt u volkomen over long covid: een ziekte waar honderdduizenden mensen in Nederland aan lijden. Een groot deel van hen kan niet meer normaal werken. En hoewel gelukkig een groot deel uiteindelijk, na maanden of jaren, beter wordt, geldt dat vrijwel nooit voor één derde van hen: de ziekste groep, die hun huis of zelfs bed niet meer uit kunnen, en die vrijwel nooit genezen.
Uit internationaal onderzoek blijkt dat de coronaprik ook ten dele tegen long covid beschermt: maar liefst voor 50%.
Waarom gunt u minder mensen de prik, terwijl daar geen enkele medische argumentatie achter zit? U zegt wel dat het aantal infecties, ziekenhuisopnames en sterfte is afgenomen, maar zoals u zelf al zegt is de ziektelast nog altijd hoger dan van andere luchtweginfecties. U geeft geen enkele reden op waarom mensen die de griepprik krijgen, wél tegen de griep beschermd zouden moeten worden, maar níet tegen corona, ook al is de ziektelast daar veel hoger van. Wat betekent dit? Het lijkt er alleszins op dat u dit advies baseert op andere motivaties dan gezondheid. Zoals bezuinigingen. Gaat u RFK Jr achterna, en binnenkort ook stoppen met de griepprik?
Ik heb zelf ME/cvs. Dat is net als long covid, Q-koorts, chronische Lyme , PL en PSS een PAIS. Alle PAIS ziekten hebben sterke overeenkomsten. En als je de ene PAIS hebt, ben je kwetsbaarder voor de andere PAIS. Het slechtste wat je kunt doen, is meerdere PAIS tegelijk krijgen. Als ik er als ME patiënt long covid bij zou krijgen, heb ik zeer grote kans dat ik de rest van mijn leven bedlegerig ben.
Er zijn bijna 500.000 mensen met een PAIS in Nederland. En hoewel u in 2018 concludeerde dat wij ME/cvs patiënten eindelijk serieus genomen moeten worden, en we niet langer genegeerd moeten worden, negeert u ons sindsdien.
Iedereen is kwetsbaar voor corona. Iedereen kan long covid krijgen - het komt zelfs meer voor bij zeer gezonde fanatieke sporters dan bij de gemiddelde bevolking. Een gemiddeld persoon heeft elke besmetting opnieuw 6% kans.
Mensen die bijvoorbeeld net als ik al een andere PAIS of andere kwetsbaarheid hebben, hebben een nog veel grotere kans op long covid. Professor dr Sandra Kooij: "Risicofactoren voor Long Covid zijn oa: vrouw zijn, hooikoorts, astma, urticaria, fibromyalgie, ME/CVS, herpes Zoster, ziekte van Pfeiffer, hypermobiliteit, en psychiatrische aandoeningen zoals ADHD, angst en depressie." Daarnaast natuurlijk mensen met een verminderde weerstand.
Dit gaat om heel veel mensen. Waarvan maar een heel klein groepje de prik nog van u mag krijgen.
De overheid vraagt van ons kwetsbaren om onszelf te beschermen tegen covid. Dat dit een neoliberale gotspe is, mag duidelijk zijn. Er zijn maar twee middelen die het ons mogelijk maken om onszelf een klein beetje te beschermen:
- De rioolcijfers, die ons duidelijk maken of er veel of weinig corona heerst, en of we met een gerust hart kunnen afspreken met een zorgverlener of vriend, of dat we bezoek beter uit kunnen stellen
- De coronaprik (die we volgens internationaal onderzoek overigens veel beter elke drie maanden zouden moeten nemen)
U schaft nu allebei af. Het gevolg is dat velen van ons geen andere keuze hebben dan om levenslang in isolatie te gaan; of om nóg zieker te worden.
Chronisch zieken worden in dit land, het vijfde rijkste land ter wereld, willens en wetens onder de bus geduwd, en dat is een grove schande.
edit: Meestal lees ik meer dan het persbericht, maar om de één of andere reden heb ik dat deze keer niet gedaan. Stom. In het echte advies staat de griepprik groep wel genoemd. Ben je tussen de 50 en 69 jaar en krijg je de griepprik, dan krijg je ook het corona vaccin als je wil. Zit je niet in de griepprik groep en heb je ook geen hoge medische kwetsbaarheid, dan heb je pas vanaf 70 recht op het vaccin.
MAAR wat nieuw is aan het advies is dat huisgenoten van kwetsbaren ineens niet meer worden genoemd. Godverdomme!
Excuses voor mijn fout over de griepprikgroep, en dank aan @Pim Joosten 🍉 die me er op opmerkzaam maakte.
Waarom mensen onder de vijftig, die kwetsbaar genoeg zijn om de griepprik te krijgen, dan toch geen corona vaccin krijgen, blijft een raadsel.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (meestal afgekort tot RFK Jr) is de minister van gezondheid in de VS. Hij is een antivaxxer (en een fascist van het ergste soort). Hij heeft de Amerikaanse gezondheidsraad vervangen met mensen die ook tegen vaccinatie zijn, en die allerlei hoaxes verspreiden net als hij. Hij beweert bijvoorbeeld dat paracetamol super gevaarlijk is en dat je autisme zou krijgen van vaccins, wat baarlijke nonsens is.
Ik heb het gevoel dat er een experiment met ons gedaan wordt: hoeveel meer mensen belanden in het ziekenhuis als we 60-69 jarigen niet vaccineren en wat kost dat? Hoeveel overlijden er en wat bespaart dat op de AOW (en pensioenen)? Wat besparen we aan vaccinatiekosten?
Het draait immers allemaal om geld in dit land? Wat een armoe.
Ah, dank je. Dat eerste had ik gezien, maar dat laatste had ik gemist. In vorige jaren stond dat wel al in het persbericht. Ik had moeten doorklikken en heb dat tweede bericht überhaupt gemist.
En er valt me iets anders op. Gezinsleden van kwetsbare mensen worden niet meer genoemd. 🤬
de afgelopen 2 jaar hebben wij de prik gehaald zonder dat wij officieel in een risico groep zitten (want uiteraard is long covid hebben niet genoeg voor die classificatie 😒). Ze mochten nergens vragen waarom je voor een prik kwam, ik hoop echt heel erg dat die regel nog blijft staan. Want dan ga ik de eerstvolgende keer gewoon weer een prik halen! De Gezondheidsraad die kan me de bomen in met hun bizarre redenering 🫣
Zo doet mijn huisgenoot het ook. Tip: vorige jaren mochten huisgenoten ook nog. Dit jaar worden ze niet meer genoemd. Maar: als je huisgenoot in de werkzame leeftijd is: zorgmedewerkers mogen nog steeds. En in tegenstelling tot het eerste jaar, toen ze voorrang kregen, is er volgens mij nu geen bewijs meer wat ze moeten laten zien...
mijn moeder is al een paar jaar vrijwilliger bij prikstraten, zij mochten de afgelopen jaren om geen enkel bewijs vragen waarom iemand een afspraak had gemaakt (of überhaupt naar een reden vragen). Dus zolang dat maar niet veranderd, blijven mijn man en ik fijn die prik halen 😉
Vanmiddag schreef ik nog over de VVD, dat het een extreemrechtse partij is geworden die lokaal samen met neonazi's tegen AZC's protesteert, en zelfs samenwerkt met huurlingen.
Vanavond moet ik helaas berichten dat het CDA de VVD extreemrechts heeft ingehaald.
VVD'er Azmani had een zeer racistisch en mensenrechten-schendend voorstel gedaan aan het Europarlement. Kort gezegd kwam het neer op het mogelijk maken van massadeportaties van vluchtelingen, en kampen buiten Europa waar mensen voorgoed in opgesloten kunnen worden als ze niet zomaar naar hun land van oorsprong gedeporteerd kunnen worden.
Maar de Christendemocraten, waaronder het CDA, vonden dit voorstel niet extremistisch genoeg. Er stonden nog een paar verzachtingen in, bijvoorbeeld dat er geen kinderen in die kampen opgesloten mochten worden.
Dankzij het CDA mogen kinderen nu wél in deze concentratiekampen worden gegooid. De kampen zijn in het aangenomen voorstel bovendien geen "laatste redmiddel" meer,
... Show more...
Vanmiddag schreef ik nog over de VVD, dat het een extreemrechtse partij is geworden die lokaal samen met neonazi's tegen AZC's protesteert, en zelfs samenwerkt met huurlingen.
Vanavond moet ik helaas berichten dat het CDA de VVD extreemrechts heeft ingehaald.
VVD'er Azmani had een zeer racistisch en mensenrechten-schendend voorstel gedaan aan het Europarlement. Kort gezegd kwam het neer op het mogelijk maken van massadeportaties van vluchtelingen, en kampen buiten Europa waar mensen voorgoed in opgesloten kunnen worden als ze niet zomaar naar hun land van oorsprong gedeporteerd kunnen worden.
Maar de Christendemocraten, waaronder het CDA, vonden dit voorstel niet extremistisch genoeg. Er stonden nog een paar verzachtingen in, bijvoorbeeld dat er geen kinderen in die kampen opgesloten mochten worden.
Dankzij het CDA mogen kinderen nu wél in deze concentratiekampen worden gegooid. De kampen zijn in het aangenomen voorstel bovendien geen "laatste redmiddel" meer, maar afgewezen asielzoekers en hun gezinnen kunnen nu meteen in deze "terugkeerhubs" worden gedetineerd.
De christendemocraten zochten en vonden actief de samenwerking met de fascistische fracties in het Europarlement, om dit er door te krijgen. Ze namen letterlijk zinnen uit extreemrechtse partijprogramma's op in hun voorstel. Dit ondanks het feit dat de christendemocratische partijen in eigen land meestal weigeren om samen te werken met extreemrechts.
Alle partijen stemden tegen, behalve christendemocraten plus extreemrechts. En die laatste twee hebben samen tegenwoordig de meerderheid. Het racistische, onmenselijke voorstel is daardoor aangenomen door de commissie die er over gaat, en goedkeuring in het EU parlement is nu alleen nog een formaliteit.
Dit ondanks het feit dat meer dan 100.000 Europeanen het voorstel van Azmani een mensenrechtenschending noemden en er daarom een petitie tegen tekenden. Maar nu is er dus juist een nog veel fascistoïder voorstel aangenomen.
CDA, BBB, NSC en de andere Europese christendemocraten werkten voor hun monsterachtige voorstel samen met oa AfD, Fratelli d’Italia, PVV, Rassemblement National, Fidesz, FPÖ, Vox en Vlaams Belang.
...Er zaten eens drie mensen aan een tafel, toen er zeven nazi's langs liepen...
Europees asielbeleid: Samen met radicaal-rechtse fracties kiezen de christen-democraten in het Europees Parlement voor aanscherping van het asielbeleid. Het beleid is strenger dan wat VVD’er Malik Azmani voorstelde.
De VVD is een extreemrechtse partij. Dat wist je natuurlijk al, zeker sinds ze een fascistische FvD motie steunden die antifascisme een vorm van "terrorisme" noemde.
Maar ze zijn zojuist wéér een stukje verder opgeschoven, weg van "fatsoenlijk" rechts. Ze voeren nu samen met neonazi's actief campagne tegen een AZC in De Bilt.
Waar overigens 15 jaar geleden een fijn AZC was, waar ook bij werd geprotesteerd door inwoners van de gemeente: namelijk toen het dicht ging. De omwonenden wilden het toen OPEN houden.
Maar de lokale VVD (die zich trouwens groen noemt omdat ze in haar verkiezingsprogramma heeft staan dat ze tegen windmolens is 😵💫 ), is nu fel tégen een AZC. Dat nieuwe AZC komt misschien op het terrein van Berg & Bosch, een groen bedrijventerrein voor allerlei organisaties uit de sectoren zorg, gezondheid en sociaal-maatschappelijke dienstverlening. Er is genoeg plek over. Of het er echt komt, en in welke vorm, is nog totaal onduidelijk: de besluitvorming is pas net begonnen.
De VVD en een paar stinkend rijke omwonenden beweren dat de bezoekers, omwonenden en asielzoekers zelf onveilig zouden zijn als er een asielzoekerscentrum komt, omdat er "te weinig straatlantarens" zouden zijn, en omdat er "geen lantarens bijgeplaatst" zouden mogen worden vanwege "het groen".
Dit is allicht volkomen bullshit. Het is nog niet eens bekend óf en waar op het terrein een AZC komt of in welke vorm, laat staan dat iemand iets weet over het aantal lampjes.
Ook wat betreft de veiligheidsgevoelens van de "kwetsbare bezoekers" van de zorgbedrijven op het terrein: daar ben ik er heel toevallig zelf eentje van. Het terrein is helemaal niet donker. En al was het dat wel: ik voel me er sowieso helemaal niet onveilig, maar als er naast witte mensen in zorginstellingen ook asielzoekers zouden wonen, voel ik me alleen maar nóg veiliger.
Een paar racistische omwonenden hebben "een professioneel onderzoeksbureau" ingehuurd "wat vaak voor de overheid werkt", om hun mening in een veiligheidsrapportje te laten verwoorden. Het gaat om het bedrijf Triangular Group Insights. Aan de website van de lokale VVD is duidelijk te zien dat zij flink hebben meegedacht, als ze niet al gewoon hoofdopdrachtgever zijn.
Dit "onderzoeksbureau" heeft voor haar rapport geen enkele keer contact gezocht met het COA, en heeft dus ook geen idee wat de plannen überhaupt zijn. Wel zocht ze voor de vorm contact met de gemeente.
RTV Utrecht: "Een woordvoerder van de gemeente laat weten dat het bureau pas vorige week vrijdag wethouder Smolenaers benaderde. Die gaf aan het verzoek maandag 2 maart te bespreken met collega's. Op die dag nam hij contact op met het TGI om te vragen of zij het verzoek op papier wilden zetten. Een dag later ontving de wethouder dat verzoek. Daarbij werd ook gevraagd of Smolenaers gisteren of vandaag tijd had voor een afspraak om input te geven voor het onderzoek.
Vervolgens kreeg de gemeente te horen dat het onderzoek gisteren gepubliceerd zou worden. De Bilt vroeg nog om uitstel, maar kreeg als antwoord dat de opdrachtgever hier niet voor openstond. "Daarmee is input geven door de gemeente onmogelijk gemaakt.""
Dat was dus altijd al de bedoeling.
De VVD spint heel handig steeds die woorden "professioneel onderzoeksbureau, werkzaam voor oa overheden". Ik dacht, ik zoek dat "Triangular Group Insights" (TGI) eens op.
Hier een screenshot van dat zogenaamde professionele onderzoeksbureau (wat niets loslaat over klanten, en wat super vaag is over opdrachten: ze zouden iets in Oekraïne doen, met commando's werken en in het buitenland 'een hoofddader van een miljoenendiefstal' hebben opgespoord, zonder zelfs maar te vertellen over welke diefstal dat dan zou gaan. Wel vragen ze ex-commando's, ontslagen politieagenten en, jawel, ex-spionnen om te solliciteren.)
klopt, we zijn ook heel goed vertegenwoordigd in de leiding (en financiering, want pushbacks van dobbernegers, -negerinnen en -kinderen mogen wat kosten) van onze #grensgestapo #frontex
@SchepBernard En "onze" Mark Rutte gaf met Von der Leyen het kritieke duwtje (vlak voor verkiezingen) dat het prima was voor de EU om deals te doen met dictaturen. En dat het prima was om dat te doen zonder advies en daarna de ombudsman en mensenrechten rapporten onder een laag radioactief afval te begraven.
As someone who came to the US as a refugee with political asylum I can't overstate how cruel this is. I was already terrified and had nightmares every day. And here they're telling you that you didn't get to safety after all that, that they will reverse your status on a whim, if they deem it safe for you to return. As Warsan Shire wrote, no one leaves home unless home becomes the mouth of a shark.
We strongly oppose the Unified Attestation initiative and call for app developers supporting privacy, security and freedom on mobile to avoid it. Companies selling phones should not be deciding which operating systems people are allowed to use for apps.
@ftm it is worth checking Volla's source trees. They use ancient kernels firmware blobs, etc. It's pretty much the same issue as GMS Android, the whole attestation thing becomes security theater if phones with years of known holes get attested.
It's inherently security theatre because neither companies and governments are willing to ban using the majority of Android phones which is what would happen if even basic security standards such as keeping up with High and Critical severity patches from AOSP and the SoC / radio vendors was enforced. Instead, they're disallowing people having the freedom to use their hardware or OS of choice while not enforcing even basic security standards. They're disallowing better security.
This entry was edited (Monday, March 9, 2026, 6:42 PM)
There's no legitimate purpose for either Play Integrity or Unified Attestation to exist. Both will inherently fail to uphold even basic security standards since otherwise their own products wouldn't be allowed. Root-based attestation is also inherently not a secure approach.
The Nostr based app store called "Zapstore" has already solved this problem. Zapstore empowers developers to sign and release apps over the Nostr protocol without needing to get permission from any app store or from any governnent or any other entity.
The Zapstore already has most of the useful F-Droid apps, and anyone can release more apps.
Having a European version of the Play Integrity which permits people to use insecure products from specific European companies participating in it while disallowing using arbitrary hardware or software is the opposite of a solution. It's more of the same anti-competitive garbage.
So if Im understanding this correctly, what GOS wants is for apps to use an API that will interface with a hardware chip like the titan m2 and will report that the bootloader is locked etc and also report the signing key to apps? Then it would be up to the app to trust that key (which necessitates an allowlist of sorts maintained by apps individually). Is my understanding correct?
@pixelsfanryo No, your understanding is not correct. We want apps to start implementing proper server side security protections instead of using obfuscation and weak anti-tampering systems such as this to try to stop people looking at their code and experimenting with their services to find vulnerabilities. Apps shouldn't be enforcing using only specific operating systems. They're welcome to warn people about having an insecure OS but shouldn't be banning users from using what they want to use.
If that is the case, then IMO uattest is actually better. A CA like uattest, as bad as it sounds, will probably be more amenable to allowing reasonably secure alternative OS like LineageOS. You only need to persuade one entity. While if each app gets to decide then you have to convince each dev, bank, gov to allow your OS. That doesnt sound very practical. And the uattest proposal can be implemented right now on most devices while most devices dont have a security chip at the moment.
This entry was edited (Monday, March 9, 2026, 7:54 PM)
@pixelsfanryo No, your understanding is not correct. We want apps to start implementing proper server side security protections instead of using obfuscation and weak anti-tampering systems such as this to try to stop people looking at their code and experimenting with their services to find vulnerabilities. Apps shouldn't be enforcing using only specific operating systems. They're welcome to warn people about having an insecure OS but shouldn't be banning users from using what they want to use.
@Bebef You can do those things on a phone using a web browser too. On the other hand, a lot of functionality is exclusive to mobile apps from banks and governments which are increasingly locking out users from using anything but operating systems approved based on the business models of companies involved in mobile phones. Whether someone can use a device to run a banking app shouldn't be determined based on a decision from either Google or Volla/Murena/iodé. These companies have no place in it.
Well, I don't know what's going on in your heads, but whether people want to use Murena, Volla, etc., or GrapheneOS, that's up to the users themselves to decide... It's okay if you don't like each other, but making a statement like that is below the belt... As a GrapheneOS user, I feel embarrassed on your behalf... Just because you've teamed up with Motorola doesn't mean you have to be so arrogant... My two cents.
Also ich weiß ja nicht, was in euren Köpfen vorgeht aber: Ob die Menschen Murena, Volla und Co nutzen wollen oder GrapheneOS nutzen, dass sollen die user selbst entscheiden ..... Das ihr euch untereinander nicht leiden könnt okay, sei es drum, aber so ne Aussage abzuliefern ist unterhalb der Gürtellinie..... Da muss man sich als GrapheneOS User ja für eure Aussage regelrecht fremd schämen .... Nur weil ihr nun mit Motorola euch zusammengetan habt, heißt es noch lange nicht das ihr euch so überheblich ablästern müsst ..... Meine Meinung
@Pingitux Their products aren't at all what they claim but rather have poor privacy and atrocious security. They feel very threatened by GrapheneOS. Murena and iodé have engaged in many years of attacks on GrapheneOS including personal attacks on our team. They've engaged in absolutely vile fabrications and bullying aimed at directing harassment towards our team. Their communities have relentlessly targeted our team with harassment. You're pushing a false narrative about what's happening.
@Pingitux Their products aren't at all what they claim but rather have poor privacy and atrocious security. They feel very threatened by GrapheneOS. Murena and iodé have engaged in many years of attacks on GrapheneOS including personal attacks on our team. They've engaged in absolutely vile fabrications and bullying aimed at directing harassment towards our team. Their communities have relentlessly targeted our team with harassment. You're pushing a false narrative about what's happening.
@Pingitux Here's the founder and CEO of /e/ and Murena linking to harassment content from a neo-nazi conspiracy site targeting our founder with fabrications:
@Pingitux Here's the founder and CEO of /e/ and Murena linking to harassment content from a neo-nazi conspiracy site targeting our founder with fabrications:
Yes, it may be that their products lag behind in terms of security, data protection, and patch levels.... A few independent bloggers/journalists should critically test their software and deliver an honest article.... Okay, and because they are personally attacking the founder of GrapheneOS, we have to stoop to their level, right?
@adfichter I know what you think of Murena and /e/OS. I know that you prefer hardware attestation for good reasons and reject Google's policy regarding the Play Integrity API. And I know that most banking apps work on GrapheneOS - I myself have been using GrapheneOS with a banking app for many years. But I wonder what to do if more and more app manufacturers get serious and make their apps installable exclusively via Play Integrity API. 1/3
@adfichter Wouldn't it then make sense or be helpful to have something like Unified Attestation as an alternative, even if there are many things to criticize about it? If the only option for me at some point were to have to use stock Android, then I (and many others too) would have a real problem. And it could be that Unified Attestation is then the only usable alternative, even if it's not perfect. 2/3
@adfichter Thats why i was asking and I'm specifically interested in what, from your point of view, speaks against the Unified Attestation approach from a technical (not political) perspective. And whether Unified Attestation could also be used with GrapheneOS. I also think it would be desirable for the EU to intervene with regulations. But it won't do that; the EU won't do anything against Google's will, and it won't mess with the MAGA regime. We shouldn't wait for that to happen. 3
@isf @adfichter An attestation system which bans using GrapheneOS while permitting operating systems not doing the bare minimum for privacy and security isn't legitimate. It's no more legitimate when these European companies do it than when Google does it. These companies are in no way neutral and not at all responsible when it comes to security. They shouldn't have any say in which operating systems are secure enough to run banking apps. It's absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable.
@adfichter Once again: I am aware that you have good reasons for not liking /e/OS etc. And I am NOT defending /e/OS etc. here. My question was what technical (not political) arguments there are against Unified Attestation, so that it could be used if necessary, if at some point there are perhaps no better alternatives. And whether I could then also use it on GrapheneOS, so that I don't have to switch to stock Android.
@isf @adfichter It serves no purpose because Android already has a hardware attestation API. They're only putting themselves in control of choosing what's allowed where their insecure operating systems will be permitted but GrapheneOS won't be permitted. We're not going to tolerate it. What if we release a library which bans each of the operating systems participating in this and convince several apps to adopt it? How are they going to feel about that? We aren't powerless to act.
Okay, you obviously don't want to answer my question objectively. That's unfortunate, because it makes you seem untrustworthy. Or are you just a chatbot anyway?
@isf We answered your question. Android has a usable hardware attestation API which doesn't require these groups in charge of which operating systems should be permitted. It's something which should be decided by neutral parties without massive conflicts of interest. Companies selling devices should not be in charge of deciding which devices are allowed to be used for banking apps in Europe. What justification is there Volla, Murena and iodé to decide this instead of neutral parties?
No, you haven't. You obviously haven't even read my question. Once again: yes, they should. But what is to be done if the don't? That was my question. As someone who has been using GrapheneOS for many years and supports the project with a monthly donation, I would have expected a factual question to be answered factually. Instead, you repeat political demands that I share, but which do not answer my question. This is unfortunate and makes you appear untrustworthy.
@isf This is worse than not doing something and will greatly interfere with ongoing efforts to convince apps to stop doing this. You can stop with the baseless claim that we're somehow untrustworthy because we're strongly against this in any form. In terms of GrapheneOS, it's another hostile anti-competitive API that's going to forbid using it but we're in a much stronger position to fight this since it's starting from zero adoption and only backing from tiny companies with fewer total users.
@isf @adfichter No, your understanding is not correct. We want apps to start implementing proper server side security protections instead of using obfuscation and weak anti-tampering systems such as this to try to stop people looking at their code and experimenting with their services to find vulnerabilities. Apps shouldn't be enforcing using only specific operating systems. They're welcome to warn people about having an insecure OS but shouldn't be ban users from using what they want to use.
@adfichter > "No, your understanding is not correct." Did you even read my post? > "Apps shouldn't be enforcing using only specific operating systems. They're welcome to warn people about having an insecure OS but shouldn't be ban users from using what they want to use." Yes, they shouldn't. But what if they do nevertheless? That was my question. What is your suggestion if this scenario occurs?
@Pingitux We've posted accurate information debunking their attacks and addressing their false marketing. We've continued posting it because of continued attacks on GrapheneOS and our team. That's absolutely not stooping to their level. There's no reason for us to tolerate someone engaging in such blatant misrepresentations and lies about our project and team. You're going to achieve the direct opposite of silencing us. There's no reason for you to continue contacting us beyond trolling.
Okay, they attacked you, told lies, whatever... Honestly, show some class and don't give a damn about their opinion. After all, you have a community behind you that stands by you... You know, let me put it this way: I tell the world that if it annoys me, I don't give a fuck.. You should try that too when someone gets on your nerves. It works wonders ;)
@Pingitux Our community should help us much more than they do with the attacks being perpetrated against GrapheneOS and our team. If that was happening then it wouldn't be causing nearly as much harm and we wouldn't talk about it as much as we wouldn't feel nearly as much pressing need to provide an alternative to their inaccurate and misleading claims.
@MrGR thats ok but what about rossmann? He had an argument with a dev that responded not so mature. He still was kinda polite and it's sad that he stopped using GrapheneOS. From what i've heard you suspended the devs work on the GOS project and so it would all be settled, yet you said some bad stuff about rossmann lastly. Thought that was all sorted out? Don't get me wrong, i really like GrapheneOS and what Rossmann otherwise supports but that beef hurts our community. Any thoughts?
@MrGR They've been spreading misinformation about GrapheneOS and making personal attacks on our team for years. They were doing it long before we were regularly publicly defending ourselves from it. Debunking their attacks and providing accurate information isn't remotely in the same class as what they're doing. Each time people push these false narratives about GrapheneOS and make disingenuous claims about the ongoing situation, we'll defend ourselves that much harder against these attacks.
@neogoth @MrGR That's an outrageously inaccurate story. Rossmann engaged in months of bullying towards the founder of GrapheneOS both privately and publicly. He also supported Henry Fisher's public bullying campaign based around fabrications. There's nothing polite about the toxicity he engaged in towards us. After swatting attacks from Henry Fisher's community targeting the founder of GrapheneOS, Rossmann live streamed himself trolling him and then followed it up making a video out of it.
@neogoth @MrGR That video consists of targeting someone with bullying based on fabricating a false narrative about them and pushing tropes from the harassment/doxxing site where Rossmann is a member. Rossmann rants about people he dislikes on Kiwi Farms knowing they'll target thise people because they support him. Rossmann similarly knew the result of his incredibly dishonest video would be harassment and his phony justifications are thoroughly disproven at this point.
@neogoth @MrGR Claims that anyone had their work suspended on GrapheneOS or left the project is false. The massive amount of harassment directed towards our project and particularly our founder resulted in a major drop in productivity and another developer had to take over doing code review and leading the development team. Spinning someone not being able to do their job anymore due to how much they were being harassed into that story is ridiculous. You should stop listening to the perpetrators.
@MrGR i've edited it for the context, hope that suits you. I read through some Kiwifarms Posts, about Copperhead stuff and now I understand the situation that Daniel was in. I feel way better about using his code, clearly nobody is perfect and I can understand why he acted like this after all of that drama and hard work trying to safe his project. I also hope for Louis that he understands that too and gets supportive or atleast neutral again.
@MrGR oh damn, sorry i didn't know that, sounds like louis is kinda gaslighting people. Thanks for your clarification, i'll have a look on those kiwifarms posts and investigate more. Hearing that it harmed your project is very sad and i hope for you and your team that it'll get better soon. All that stuff from others also sounds like someone doesn't like that you are enabling phones to be nearly unhackable and as safe and privacy friendly as possible. Keep up the great work!
@whitequark We were actively engaging with the European Commission and others about it and this is going to seriously interfere with it. We don't want any companies or governments to be choosing which operating systems are allowed. It's a horrible idea and it puts us in a position where even if GrapheneOS is allowed then these companies or governments have leverage to make arbitrary demands. They can make anti-privacy and anti-security demands where not complying means losing app compatibility.
Is this (unified attestation) an analog of whatever it is that google does in apps that ends up with things like banking apps needing google services? Or am I thinking of something completely different?
@tirohia It's another way for apps to forbid using arbitrary operating systems and instead only allow specific ones. In Google's case via the Play Integrity API that means permitting only operating systems licensing Google Mobile Services. That includes mostly insecure devices failing to provide patches. In this case it's a way to allow a specific set of operating systems developed in Europe which are failing to provide basic privacy/security patches and protections. It's actually anti-security.
@eskuero would I be wrong to say that this alternative attestation would still preferable to Play Store Integrity? Perhaps there is some background to the people behind it that I am missing.
@eskuero oh, well of course! Has UAT indicated that they would, or is the concern more an expectation that they would follow in Google's footsteps and reject "unofficial" Android versions?
I would like to say Thank You! GrapheneOS devs for giving us the best Privacy and Security on a phone and also a LOT of Peace of Mind for the privacy concious people. 😉👍 Also been using it for a month now and I pretty much like it even if I had to get a Pixel for it, it was worth it!
seeing frequent hostility and drama come out of this account makes me want to switch off of GOS, despite really liking it. It makes me feel uncertain about the sustainability of the project and the character of people behind it. Hopefully the constant drama I am seeing doesn't represent the overall culture of the project. If not, please get someone else to manage the socials!
This entry was edited (Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 6:57 AM)
@volla These type of divisive debates weaken the community and are the biggest gift to Google & Big Tech. We don't need fighting among the community. On the contrary, let's put the effort in building a large and diverse free/libre ecosystem in mobile computing.🤗
@MrGR We post factual information about the falsely marketed products from companies attacking GrapheneOS in response to their attacks. You're misrepresenting the situation and what we said. It's the opposite of supporting a project you use which is provided to you entirely for free.
@MrGR They've waged a war against GrapheneOS and our team for years. No amount of misrepresentations from you about the situation and what we've said/done is going to change reality. The real enemies of GrapheneOS are the people trying to harm GrapheneOS and our team. Apple has done nothing to try to harm GrapheneOS. Apple makes products with substance behind their privacy and security claims. We wish Apple didn't have such an aversion to giving credit to others but it's not an attack on us.
Ich verstehe euren Krieg gegen andere Custom-ROMs nicht. Eure eigentlichen Gegner sind doch die proprietären Betriebssysteme von Apple und Google, nicht andere Betriebssysteme, die von einer ganz kleinen Minderheit genutzt werden.
@bastian @MrGR We have many threads on this platform responding to attacks from these groups with links. If you want a particularly awful example, here's one of many cases where the founder and CEO of /e/ and Murena linked to harassment content targeting our founder. He has repeatedly spread fabricated stories and harassment content including from Kiwi Farms. In this case he linked a neo-nazi conspiracy site peddling the usual Kiwi Farms content.
@bastian It's not clear why Volla and LineageOS are being brought up by @MrGR. Both Murena and iodé have both been heavily attacking GrapheneOS and our team with false claims, not Volla and LineageOS.
Unified Attestation is itself a form of attack on GrapheneOS and any other operating system that's not part of it. We posted a thread responding to that because it's going to have negative consequences for GrapheneOS users just as the Play Integrity API banning GrapheneOS already does today.
@MrGR @neogoth There haven't been any internal power struggles and people engaging in years of extreme harassment and libel towards our founder and other team members is not simply personal insults. You're repeatedly misrepresenting what's happening and downplaying it. If you're not going to do basic research into what's happening and has been happening in the past then you're not in a position to leave any informed responses or advice. You're taking away from GrapheneOS development right now.
@neogoth es scheint hier um interne Grabenkämpfe und persönliche Beleidigungen zu handeln. Wie schade! Es gibt doch wichtigeres zu tun, Menschen Alternativen zu #bigtech anbieten und sie zu überzeugen. @GrapheneOS
@privacyfriendly Android Open Source Project and GrapheneOS are Linux. AOSP is open source and has a massive ecosystem built on the open source code. There are many stakeholders interested in continuing it. It would be a very messy situation if the original upstream stopped existing but it's entirely possible for development on it as an open source project to continue. It hopefully won't come to that. Ideally Android will be forcibly split from Google into a company friendlier to open source.
@echedellelr No, we've never supported apps banning using operating systems. We've always been against the Play Integrity API. We support a neutral implementation of hardware-based attestation which isn't designed for blocking competing hardware and operating systems. We support regulations which forbid apps from banning alternative hardware and operating systems. We've been in active contact with multiple EU Commission groups over the years pushing for this and also regulators elsewhere.
@meanmicio @volla We aren't part of a shared community and we're not on the same side. Volla, Murena and iodé trying to put themselves in the position of being the ones choosing which operating systems people are allowed to run on their devices is wrong. It's not a solution to the Play Integrity API but rather a new problem we'll be fighting against too. We aren't going to allow either Google or Volla to erode app compatibility with GrapheneOS without facing opposition and consequences.
@MrGR @bastian Murena's operating system is a fork of LineageOS which heavily reduces both privacy and security compared to LineageOS. It lags far further behind on updates and adds many invasive services into the OS unlike LineageOS. LineageOS has not misled people about what it provides with a massive amount of false marketing. Unlike Murena, they also haven't attacked GrapheneOS with relentless misinformation as an organization. Murena's leadership and official project accounts have done so.
@MrGR @bastian In order for users to make an informed decision about what they want to use, they need to have accurate information available. Murena's false marketing stops people from making an informed decision. Someone misled into using their products due to believing it provides privacy and security it doesn't based on their false marketing wasn't given a chance to make an informed decision. Providing accurate information gives people a chance to choose what they want to use properly.
Ich wundere mich, dass du so viel Zeit dafür verwendest, eure Angriffe gegenüber andere zu rechtfertigen. Ich denke mal, dass die Nutzer selbst entscheiden können, für welches System sie sich entscheiden. Eure Öffentlichkeitsarbeit gegen andere Mitbewerber bewirkt eher das Gegenteil von dem, was ihr beabsichtigt! Wenn mich GrapheneOS nicht überzeugen würde, würden eure aggressiven Posts mich von euch eher abstoßen. Du überschätzt die Bedeutung von Gael (eos) und IODE. @bastian
Für euch wäre es wichtiger, dass ihr Partner findet, die Handys mit vorinstalliertem GrapheneOS anbietem und vermarkten, damit mehr Leute zu GrapheneOS wechseln können. Da sind Volla, Iode und Murena euch voraus. Ich verspreche mir von dem Motorola Handy mit GrapheneOS viel. @bastian
@MrGR @bastian There's a clear difference between publishing accurate information about products in response to false marketing from what they're doing. You're conflating their years of making inaccurate claims about GrapheneOS to mislead people into believing it isn't suitable for them with providing accurate information in response. It's not wrong to provide accurate information about products. It is wrong to lie about GrapheneOS and our team to promote their products. Those aren't the same.
@MrGR @bastian There are already companies selling devices with GrapheneOS preinstalled. We don't want to have devices lacking important privacy and security patches/protections. Those products aren't in the same space as GrapheneOS in the first place. It's easy to churn out insecure devices and support for those. Working with a large OEM to build far more secure devices meeting our requirements is not something any of those companies have done or are doing. How exactly are they ahead of us?
dann zeigt doch mal einen aktuellen Link zu so einem Beitrag. Bislang habe ich dazu nichts gesehen. Und bitte keinen Post von X. Ich bin nicht bei X. @bastian
@bastian Nur sehr wenige Leute wissen, dass sie zum Beispiel bei Nitrokey ein Smartphone mit GrapheneOS kaufen können, wobei das dort zweihundert Euro Aufpreis kostet. In der Vermarktung eures Betriebssystems könnte man einiges verbessern. Die meisten haben sich GrapheneOS selber installiert. Damit erreicht man aber nicht die Leute, die so ein Handy gerne haben, aber nicht selber installieren wollen. Auf eurer Homepage fehlt jeder Hinweis auf eure Partner.
@MrGR yeah got it, sorry. If you wanna add something to clarify, feel free, i'd like knowing whats the reason for all that if you have the time for it. If not, it's all good. No need to reply here if you don't have the time for it.
I don't want attestation to begin with. Software should not care what hardware it's running on and hardware should not care what software it's running. Bootloader locking should be at the whim of the device's owner not the companies that made it, and it should be optional with the option to enroll your own keys if you wish to use it. Moving ownership from Google to another company doesn't solve the inherent problem here. I own my device, not the manufacturer.
@CalcProgrammer1 It's possible to provide features based on hardware attestation for end users without providing a form of it usable by apps to ban using alternative hardware and software. Unfortunately, the primary way that it's being used is controlling which hardware and software people are allowed to use including banning alternatives to iOS and Google Mobile Services Android. European companies making their own system banning anything other than OSes participating it is awful too.
@MrGR Every operating system should be allowed to be used with European banking and wallet apps as long as they implement the technical requirements. It certainly shouldn't be up to for-profit companies selling products and services whether it's Google or Volla to determine which devices and operating systems are allowed to be used. If banks and governments insist on it being implemented then it should be done by a neutral organization not controlled by companies allowing only their products.
@MrGR @bastian You're continuing to lie about us and misrepresent what's actually happening. Our efforts at countering the false marketing from these groups and their recent efforts to put themselves in control of which operating systems people are allowed to use for European banking and governments apps are working out fine. Your efforts to attack us by misrepresenting what we're saying and doing along with the context for it are fruitless and not achieving anything. All you've gained is a ban.
@privacyfriendly I have a question in a hypothetical framework. If that was like this in the end and Android closed completely... What would you do in that case??? Is it possible for you to participate in the development of an alternative Linux operating system like those already underway???
the system is open source, what stop you to implement it and even better contributing to it to improve security? Because this system is a very good idea to reinsure the banking company and European Union and it create a viable alternative to the Play Integrity. Your approach to just say the security rely on the user didn't convince any big firm as they are legally still responsible in case of issue and the law on that is still protecting consumers. The responsibility will remains on the apps for consumer protection so we need an alternative to make it that way and Graphene OS is not providing anything for that.
@DanielDNK This system isn't open. It's a proprietary centralized service built on top of standard Android hardware attestation. The entire purpose of Unified Attestation is centralizing control of which operating systems are allowed with the companies running it. It's absolutely unacceptable to have these companies control over whether apps adopting it can run on GrapheneOS. Participating would help to legitimize this anti-competitive power grab and would give them veto power over app compat.
@DanielDNK It would give these companies the power to sabotage GrapheneOS through breaking app compatibility at any point they choose. It would give them leverage to make arbitrary harmful demands of GrapheneOS. The system is fundamentally anti-competitive and breaks competition laws.
As soon as this system is adopted by app which begins permitting these operating systems but not GrapheneOS, we intend to file a lawsuit against these companies and will also raise their existing attacks too.
> Your approach to just say the security rely on the user didn't convince any big firm as they are legally still responsible in case of issue and the law on that is still protecting consumers.
Absolutely not true. We convinced at least a dozen apps to stop using the Play Integrity API. We convinced several apps to begin permitting specific alternate operating systems which were unwilling to stop using it. You should read what we wrote in the thread about a proper approach to this.
@DanielDNK Unified Attestation is a thin wrapper around Android hardware attestation which solely exists to make themselves into a centralized authority for controlling which devices and operating systems will be allowed through it. They haven't turned the overall Android hardware attestation feature into an open source one by layering this on top of it. The only part of Android hardware attestation that's open source is the OS. The overall system doesn't have an open source implementation yet.
@DanielDNK @TycoonTom The standard is not open to everyone. It's run by a group of companies hostile to GrapheneOS which will be permitting their own products but not GrapheneOS.
Unified Attestation is a centralized system built on top of the Android hardware attestation API for the sole purpose of a power grab where these companies can control which devices and operating systems are allowed. They haven't made their own attestation system. They've made a system to control use of a standard API.
I don't think "security" is ever the real concern here for the government. It's always about control with their limited understanding of cyber security.
The opposite is true: this is an initiative for an open-source, transparent, and publicly verifiable certification. The Graphene OS team is also invited to join the consortium or simply use UnifiedAttestation for free. The intention is to promote competition and alternatives.
@volla Android already has a standard hardware attestation API. The sole purpose of your Unified Attestation system is a power grab where you put yourselves in control of what's allowed to be used. You do not get to make any demands of GrapheneOS in order for it to be permitted. It's not legal for you to make a system which forbids using other options to your products unless those join your cartel and comply with your demands. You aren't a neutral party and have massive conflicts of interest.
De VVD is een extreemrechtse partij. Dat wist je natuurlijk al, zeker sinds ze een fascistische FvD motie steunden die antifascisme een vorm van "terrorisme" noemde.
Maar ze zijn zojuist wéér een stukje verder opgeschoven, weg van "fatsoenlijk" rechts. Ze voeren nu samen met neonazi's actief campagne tegen een AZC in De Bilt.
Waar overigens 15 jaar geleden een fijn AZC was, waar ook bij werd geprotesteerd door inwoners van de gemeente: namelijk toen het dicht ging. De omwonenden wilden het toen OPEN houden.
Maar de lokale VVD (die zich trouwens groen noemt omdat ze in haar verkiezingsprogramma heeft staan dat ze tegen windmolens is 😵💫 ), is nu fel tégen een AZC. Dat nieuwe AZC komt misschien op het terrein van Berg & Bosch, een groen bedrijventerrein voor allerlei organisaties uit de sectoren zorg, gezondheid en sociaal-maatschappelijke dienstverlening. Er is genoeg plek over. Of het er echt komt, en in welke vorm, is nog totaal onduidelijk: de besluitvorming is pas net begonnen.
De VVD en een paar stinken
... Show more...
De VVD is een extreemrechtse partij. Dat wist je natuurlijk al, zeker sinds ze een fascistische FvD motie steunden die antifascisme een vorm van "terrorisme" noemde.
Maar ze zijn zojuist wéér een stukje verder opgeschoven, weg van "fatsoenlijk" rechts. Ze voeren nu samen met neonazi's actief campagne tegen een AZC in De Bilt.
Waar overigens 15 jaar geleden een fijn AZC was, waar ook bij werd geprotesteerd door inwoners van de gemeente: namelijk toen het dicht ging. De omwonenden wilden het toen OPEN houden.
Maar de lokale VVD (die zich trouwens groen noemt omdat ze in haar verkiezingsprogramma heeft staan dat ze tegen windmolens is 😵💫 ), is nu fel tégen een AZC. Dat nieuwe AZC komt misschien op het terrein van Berg & Bosch, een groen bedrijventerrein voor allerlei organisaties uit de sectoren zorg, gezondheid en sociaal-maatschappelijke dienstverlening. Er is genoeg plek over. Of het er echt komt, en in welke vorm, is nog totaal onduidelijk: de besluitvorming is pas net begonnen.
De VVD en een paar stinkend rijke omwonenden beweren dat de bezoekers, omwonenden en asielzoekers zelf onveilig zouden zijn als er een asielzoekerscentrum komt, omdat er "te weinig straatlantarens" zouden zijn, en omdat er "geen lantarens bijgeplaatst" zouden mogen worden vanwege "het groen".
Dit is allicht volkomen bullshit. Het is nog niet eens bekend óf en waar op het terrein een AZC komt of in welke vorm, laat staan dat iemand iets weet over het aantal lampjes.
Ook wat betreft de veiligheidsgevoelens van de "kwetsbare bezoekers" van de zorgbedrijven op het terrein: daar ben ik er heel toevallig zelf eentje van. Het terrein is helemaal niet donker. En al was het dat wel: ik voel me er sowieso helemaal niet onveilig, maar als er naast witte mensen in zorginstellingen ook asielzoekers zouden wonen, voel ik me alleen maar nóg veiliger.
Een paar racistische omwonenden hebben "een professioneel onderzoeksbureau" ingehuurd "wat vaak voor de overheid werkt", om hun mening in een veiligheidsrapportje te laten verwoorden. Het gaat om het bedrijf Triangular Group Insights. Aan de website van de lokale VVD is duidelijk te zien dat zij flink hebben meegedacht, als ze niet al gewoon hoofdopdrachtgever zijn.
Dit "onderzoeksbureau" heeft voor haar rapport geen enkele keer contact gezocht met het COA, en heeft dus ook geen idee wat de plannen überhaupt zijn. Wel zocht ze voor de vorm contact met de gemeente.
RTV Utrecht: "Een woordvoerder van de gemeente laat weten dat het bureau pas vorige week vrijdag wethouder Smolenaers benaderde. Die gaf aan het verzoek maandag 2 maart te bespreken met collega's. Op die dag nam hij contact op met het TGI om te vragen of zij het verzoek op papier wilden zetten. Een dag later ontving de wethouder dat verzoek. Daarbij werd ook gevraagd of Smolenaers gisteren of vandaag tijd had voor een afspraak om input te geven voor het onderzoek.
Vervolgens kreeg de gemeente te horen dat het onderzoek gisteren gepubliceerd zou worden. De Bilt vroeg nog om uitstel, maar kreeg als antwoord dat de opdrachtgever hier niet voor openstond. "Daarmee is input geven door de gemeente onmogelijk gemaakt.""
Dat was dus altijd al de bedoeling.
De VVD spint heel handig steeds die woorden "professioneel onderzoeksbureau, werkzaam voor oa overheden". Ik dacht, ik zoek dat "Triangular Group Insights" (TGI) eens op.
Hier een screenshot van dat zogenaamde professionele onderzoeksbureau (wat niets loslaat over klanten, en wat super vaag is over opdrachten: ze zouden iets in Oekraïne doen, met commando's werken en in het buitenland 'een hoofddader van een miljoenendiefstal' hebben opgespoord, zonder zelfs maar te vertellen over welke diefstal dat dan zou gaan. Wel vragen ze ex-commando's, ontslagen politieagenten en, jawel, ex-spionnen om te solliciteren.)
O, ze doen ook aan ondermijning, zie ik. Wellicht verklaart dat hoe de plaatselijke VVD ze kent.
Los daarvan: als ik op hun website lees «Met klantgerichte inlichtingen en specialistische diensten helpen wij organisaties bij het bestrijden van (wereldwijde) dreigingen en veiligheidsuitdagingen.», dan is dit niet een club die je inhuurt voor een neutraal oordeel. Deze zet je in als je een probleem hébt. Je vooronderstelt dus dat het AZC een veiligheidsrisico is.
This entry was edited (Monday, March 9, 2026, 6:07 PM)
The creepy system that serves you targeted ads has been used by the government to track peoples' locations, new reporting confirms. eff.org/deeplinks/2026/03/targ…
no no instead lets focus on how Proton had to comply to a swiss court order to release payment data - somehow people here think a company can magically make charges to a US bank issued cc without storing PCI compliant data that can be ultimately traced back to personally identifiable information at the card issuer... paypal mafia must has been hiding this magical way from rest of us who work on payments.
The question is not whether you can create software using LLMs - you can (most software is just boring CRUD shit). But you do pay a hefty price: In lowering quality (security issues, less maintainable), in skill decay in the people "guiding" the stochastic parrots, etc.
It's not "can 'AI's create software" but "are we willing to accept worse software running more and more of our lives?"
This entry was edited (Wednesday, March 4, 2026, 1:17 PM)
Here's the thing: I believe that you deserve to have access to high quality products and services. You deserve to use products and services that are safe, secure, well-designed and not destroying the ecological, informational or social environment.
Then there’s the thing that we never had that software. Business has always accepted low quality products and services. So while I do agree with you, I’m afraid the people who run the software companies simply don’t care.
> "destroying the ecological, informational or social environment"
As good as this generated code may be, it remains unacceptable because of that. And that should be the ultimate reason (as the code quality may rise, but at the cost of more destruction)
Thinking a lot about this. To me it boils down to code ownership. Which is yet another kind of responsibility/liability that is offloaded to machines that by definition can't be.
This entry was edited (Wednesday, March 4, 2026, 11:48 AM)
@map LLMs are another way to avoid putting skin in the game. Which is the whole point, if you’re a sociopath (or play one on TV). Privatize gains, socialize losses.
@map That's just part of the truth. You can make wonderful, creative, unique software using AI. The thing is you have to specify what you want to achieve. If you don't give these goals to the AI then it will come up with some mediocre generic solution.
@gklka @map I've a bridge over the river Shannon you can buy. "make wonderful, creative, unique software using AI." No. An LLM can't create at all and if it actually works and meets the spec it's likely copied.
@gklka @map A compiler implements it. The LLM/Gen is a rubbish search engine, database and statistical engine. It regurgitates based on prompts, not formal specifications.
@gklka @raymaccarthy @map I agree with GK on this. Not all AI is the same, and it's definitely not black and white. With the right expertise and detailed specs, you can achieve great results while keeping the code maintainable and retaining ownership. I really dislike the mindset that everything has to be either absolutely good or 100% bad.
And I cannot even begin to emphasize how much *it will cost about the same despite it being of lower quality*.
Once credit entities realize that GPUs get obsolete very fast and five years down the line the early-mover needs to buy again just as much new processing hardware as a late-comer, they will stop subsidizing today's AI as a gamble to capture the market for tomorrow.
And then your 45-minutes-saving boilerplate machine will cost 5$ per run.
By now I’m pretty convinced llms can make it easier to produce high quality code then writing high quality code manually. Particularly because the AI is willing to do all the tedious, borring tasks that most developers are often to lazy for. Yes, it also makes it much easier to produce shittier code as well. (1/2)
Right now we are seeing way more of the latter because most people haven't learned yet how to produce good AI code and because the bad code sticks out while the good code blends in. But I'm convinced your underlying assumption “AI code = shitty" isn't correct. (2/2) @tante
@343max Then, Max, you have no understanding of LLM/Gen AI, or maybe of specifying requirements, designing system (modules, APIs etc) and then writing the code test & debug. If it's any size of project you need a team & management. There is also documentation. Actually writing the code is the easiest bit & the only bit the current LLM/Gen AI does, and does badly as it relies on code scraped from elsewhere & statistical shuffling of fragments. Can't work. It's a technological dead end.
@343max I think that's kind of the wrong question. Skill degradation and the moral implications (crawling of copyrighted material, climate, etc.) don't go away just because the generated code is good.
Well, well done for admitting that demonstrably, the dog can play the piano. Now we are just talking about how well it plays.
FWIW these LLMs have no need for being consistent with what happened in a previous context. The same LLM, in a new context, will usefully critique and find and fix flaws in what it itself did in the previous context.
The "slop" aspect of LLM output seems to come from just going with what one context produced blind, when it can iterate as, eg, QA manager.
I mean, you can also "build a house" by using deck screws to connect some wet doug fir 2x4s into a "frame" and then staple on some drywall and siding and drape the whole thing in a plastic tarp.
You will die when it falls on you, but for a time, it was a "house".
This entry was edited (Wednesday, March 4, 2026, 1:03 PM)
Between development speed and software quality, the industry has chosen speed long before LLMs came to be. It would no doubt be better for all of us, if we all did not let LLMs write software. But whether not using them is viable for a specific company or a specific individual in a competitive environment stays open.
This entry was edited (Wednesday, March 4, 2026, 2:52 PM)
@grymt You can abolish competition in one particular country, but it only means you are going to be losing international competition - that's already been tested in practice.
The best engineers I know just became more ambitious, and so should all of us.
I'll keep repeating this, there's tonnes of proprietary binary blobs in all of our tech. You can shout from the rooftops about how much you love your /e/OS phone, if your phone modem relies on a proprietary driver, it's pretty much worthless as a "resistance against big tech". European digital sovereignty is equally worthless.
LLMs are good at staring at hexdumps, humans aren't. Use their advantage to build actually open tech.
> But you do pay a hefty price: In lowering quality (security issues, less maintainable), in skill decay in the people "guiding" the stochastic parrots, etc.
Skill issue, idk what more to say. I don't find it any different to managing juniors and reviewing their PRs. Bad code is bad code.
This entry was edited (Wednesday, March 4, 2026, 2:12 PM)
Hot take: there should be no "software writing" involved in CRUD to begin with. Just some declarative stuff for your specific application and fully generic code.
used to be companies said they were customer first. Yes most times it was PR but by going AI first not even pretending to care about what is best for customer
I think LLM's are only good at learning programming language's basics or getting yourself interested in some random topic. That's what I do with a local LLM. I do the actual research and learning more than the basics myself.
Idk. I've never liked being spoonfed information anyway and I learn best when my effort of learning pays off. I always liked reading and learning stuff on my own even before LLM's started popping up but idk why people started decided to become really lazy.
I don't believe that to be universally true. I *wish* it was, because it'd be so much easier to argue against them.
Unfortunately, the "mere" fact that all currently existing incarnations are fundamentally evil does not mean they must lead to lower quality software.
A velocity-first mindset has *always* led to lower quality, regardless of GenAI. And they make that rush accessible to everyone, regardless of expertise/skill.
I'm also unsure skill decay is real as such. I also would struggle for a few moments before I could do long division again, or implementing a sorting algorithm.
We get the lower quality not because people use LLMs.
But because they are pressured to ever faster velocity by capitalism/fascism that wants to deregulate everything.
LLMs, used right, can be *useful*.
The problem is they are currently a) evil, b) used badly at scale.
One *can* use them for high quality results. [2/3]
@larsmb the skill decay thing has been shown over and over in studies, even by Microsoft. The canonical defense is: "Yeah but we have always lost skills, it's just normal"
Yes, but is that actually untrue? I know that even Anthropic has shown that people learn less (of what they'd have learned via the traditional method) when completing a task using GenAI, sure.
But are they maybe learning *other* things? Is their use of that tool/method improving, for example? e.g., the Anthropic paper showed that this varied widely for different Usage Patterns.
IDNK. I think it's truly too early to truly understand those mid- to long-term effects.
so uhm, i rewrote some api of a midsize free software project a year ago. it works fine, except that some features in other parts of of the project stopped working, because they depended on bugs in said api, that i rewrote. It is such an overwhelming amount of work, that i cannot motivate myself to do it. The idea of trying a llm for this is very tempting rn.
@Npars01 The answer to that question is “yes” for many executives and shareholders. It’s a balancing act. They know consumers will accept lower quality products up until the experience is poor enough that it outweighs the switching costs and network effects.
You attached a code-generating firehose to your dev plumbing, and measured the pressure of the water going in to be 10x what it was before. So you can’t understand why the business is complai…
Horen jullie het ook eens van iemand anders, van @mathijsbouman in het FD namelijk: Juist de groene gekkies hadden gelijk. “We hadden veel sneller moeten elektrificeren, met zon, wind, waterstof en batterijen, precies zoals zij zeiden. Dan was Nederland nu minder kwetsbaar geweest.”
@steltenpower Dat is wel degelijk Mathijs Bouman met een petje op voor het hek van het Witte Huis. Maar hij gebruikt zijn Mastodon-account eigenlijk niet.
Das Financieele Dagblad, renommierteste Finanzzeitung der Niederlande, zur Öl- und Gaskrise: "die grünen Spinner haben recht"
"Es waren einfach die grünen Spinner und Nachhaltigkeits-Träumer, die Recht hatten. Wir hätten viel schneller elektrifizieren müssen, mit Sonne, Wind, Wasserstoff und Batterien, exakt wie sie es sagten. Dann wären die Niederlande jetzt weniger verletzlich gewesen."
@vosje62 Ja, deze, inderdaad. En ook waar wij deel van uitmaken. Coöperatief autodelen zonder winstoogmerk, gewoon buren met elkaar, gerund door vrijwilligers...: wijzijndeel.nl @mathijsbouman
@vosje62 Ze werken van onderop, dus als je een paar huishoudens kunt enthousiasmeren, dan helpen zij bij het opzetten. De oprichter van onze coöperatie, Walter Dresscher, die ooit met vier anderen is begonnen (inmiddels 130+ huishoudens, de grootste coöperatie voor autodelen in NL) werkt bij wijzijndeel.nl, ik breng jou graag in contact met hem...
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
@isisevrinen Ja, precies, de techniek is al oud... Een van mijn favo "wat als..." is als dat had doorgezet, i.p.v. fossiele energiebronnen... @vosje62 @mathijsbouman
@isisevrinen Dat is ook een van de dingen die soms lastig zijn. Dat we nu heel goeie zonnepanelen hebben en uitstekende accu's krijgen is vooral zangen aan de mogelijkheid dat beide losgekoppeld werden en onafhankelijk konden innoveren. (Eerst panelen, gevolgd door accu's)
Saldering maakte die grote versnelling mogelijk.
(T gebrek aan noodzakelijke exit strategie aan het eind maakt dat we nu on 'deze' situatie zitten.. 🙈)
@vosje62 Ja, klopt, mijn vader, die in de jaren '80 het idee van "saldering" als eerste heeft bedacht, heeft toen al deze versnelling voorzien. Jammer, dat het nog 15 jaar moest duren, voordat Duitsland dat systeem als eerste land ter wereld heeft ingevoerd... @isisevrinen @mathijsbouman
@isisevrinen Die vertraging was doodzonde. Vooral ook omdat alle partijen zich vooral ingroeven en niet keken naar een oplossing op de lange termijn. De mogelijke scenario's waren niet zo ingewikkeld. 😇
@vosje62 Klopt, precies, ik heb mijn vader daar heel lang over horen klagen... Uiteindelijk is hij aan de vertwijfeling daarover ook overleden... @isisevrinen @mathijsbouman
@isisevrinen Vreselijk... De man had zo ontzettend gelijk!
Maar dit en ook wel een paar andere 'projecten' hebben me zo laten zien dat partijen echt een flinke kwaliteitsslag moeten maken om de steeds complexere problemen aan te kunnen.
Maar ja ... Dat is iets wat de TK voor zichzelf moet regelen. Zij gaan daar zelf over.
@isisevrinen Je hebt een meerderheid nodig die hoogstwaarschijnlijk ook een kabinet levert en dus op dat moment geen zin heeft in een versterkte Tweede Kamer. 🙃
Dit is wel wat kort door de bocht. Ja, we hadden minder afhankelijk van fossiele brandstoffen kunnen zijn. Echter, windmolens zijn van staal en de groene gekkies willen ook van Tata Steel af, dus daar hebben we een afhankelijkheid. Zonnepanelen komen vrijwel allemaal uit China. En voor elektrificatie zijn we zwaar van koper afhankelijk. Ook daarvoor zijn we sterk afhankelijk van niet Europese landen.
Dit artikel leest toch meer als opportunisme van de groene gekkies.
This entry was edited (Wednesday, March 4, 2026, 11:29 AM)
@midnightparrot Zeker zijn er ook schaduwkanten aan de energietransitie, maar het is nou ook weer onnodig om die al in de allereerste reactie zo af te doen. Er komen steeds meer alternatieven voor zeldzame aarden en metalen, het onderzoek daarnaar, b.v. wat accu's betreft, is in volle gang... @mathijsbouman
@elziax @mathijsbouman Het is heel eenvoudig. De adviezen uit gedegen rapporten aan de overheid zijn bijna altijd uitstekend.
Maar als dat niet in het straatje past van gevestigde belangen komt er een industrielobby op gang die een gewillig oor bij de VVD vindt.
En dan gaat het niet door.
Daarom, stem niet op de VVD maar op iets ter linkerzijde ervan. CDA is een twijfelgeval, maar daar kan je nog met 'rentmeesterschap' argumenten aankloppen.
Geen Europese ICE! Help ons massadeportaties te stoppen.
We bouwen 100.000 stemmen op tegen massadeportaties in Europa. Teken nu. Laten we dit samen stoppen!
Binnen een paar dagen stemt het Europese Parlement over een wet die massadeportaties invoeren. Het is een kopietje van de ellende die we in de VS zien. Al meer dan 100.000 mensen tekenden deze petitie. Voeg je stem toe!
De EU kan zomaar Trumpiaanse regels aannemen waarmee agenten mensen thuis kunnen oppakken en uitzetten naar landen waar ze nog nooit zijn geweest. Als we ons nu niet uitspreken, kan dat zomaar het nieuwe normaal worden. Teken de petitie!
Die fuckers in Den Haag willen stoppen met de rioolwatermetingen voor covid, en álle andere pandemievoorbereidingen in de vuilbak flikkeren.
Hoe moet ik me dan nog beschermen, als zeer kwetsbaar persoon voor long covid, hufters? En na het PAIS protest stond je nog te ouwehoeren dat je het zo erg vond voor ons??
Godverdomme, woest ben ik. Al zes jaar leef ik grotendeels in isolatie doordat wij chronisch zieken volkomen aan ons lot zijn overgelaten. En nu neem je zelfs de mogelijkheid weg waarmee we onszelf nog enigszins kunnen beschermen.
Waardoor we levenslang in volledige isolatie moeten! En dat doe je omdat je niet herinnerd wil worden aan die paar weken dat je zelf even in isolatie moest tijdens de lockdown, want daar ben je zo door "getraumatiseerd"...
Fuck you!!
En dan waagt @De Volkskrant het ook nog om dit te vragen: "Misschien is de gedachte wel: bij corona hadden we die organisatie ook niet van tevoren en we zijn er t
... Show more...
Die fuckers in Den Haag willen stoppen met de rioolwatermetingen voor covid, en álle andere pandemievoorbereidingen in de vuilbak flikkeren.
Hoe moet ik me dan nog beschermen, als zeer kwetsbaar persoon voor long covid, hufters? En na het PAIS protest stond je nog te ouwehoeren dat je het zo erg vond voor ons??
Godverdomme, woest ben ik. Al zes jaar leef ik grotendeels in isolatie doordat wij chronisch zieken volkomen aan ons lot zijn overgelaten. En nu neem je zelfs de mogelijkheid weg waarmee we onszelf nog enigszins kunnen beschermen.
Waardoor we levenslang in volledige isolatie moeten! En dat doe je omdat je niet herinnerd wil worden aan die paar weken dat je zelf even in isolatie moest tijdens de lockdown, want daar ben je zo door "getraumatiseerd"...
Fuck you!!
En dan waagt @De Volkskrant het ook nog om dit te vragen: "Misschien is de gedachte wel: bij corona hadden we die organisatie ook niet van tevoren en we zijn er toch goed doorheen gekomen, het viel uiteindelijk allemaal wel mee."
> 50.000 doden! 500.000 long covid patiënten! 'VIEL ALLEMAAL WEL MEE??'
Ik zou je verdomme bijna de hel van long covid en de vogelgriep toewensen. Van Jetten tot Volkskrant, je bent verantwoordelijk en ooit zul je die verantwoordelijkheid moeten dragen 💀
Gaandeweg de dag ga ik trouwens steeds meer denken dat de vragensteller het nog bij het goede eind heeft ook, dat dat dus inderdaad de gedachte erachter is. Anders doe je dit toch niet!
"En na het PAIS protest stond je nog te ouwehoeren dat je het zo erg vond voor ons??"
Dit! ⬆️ Het is zo schaamteloos inhoudsloos en doorzichtig allemaal, die zogenaamde empathie.
En jemig, wat hebben die zg wappies gewonnen zeg.
This entry was edited (Friday, February 27, 2026, 4:05 PM)
I feel that so much, I also like to always bring up, whenever somebody here in Germany gets nostalgic for the "good old times", that back then we had a wealth tax and train, postal, and telecommunication services were nationalized. Gets some prizeless looks 😁
This is the reason we are in the state we are now. I get that theyd get fired if they reported on what really matters...its just too bad we can't have reporters telling the truth. But I get it. Rupie owns them all.
She pulled up to the wrong city with that bullshit. She would’ve gotten the slop shit she wanted upstate. Thank you, Conner, for representing and not falling for the okie-doke.
A bit of an ironic a sentiment, given that upstate cities are full of people that NYC has chewed up and spit out, literal victims of the system this guy is talking about. But yea, fuck em I guess.
as someone who lived in brooklyn, then midtown manhattan, then the hudson valley, and now between the finger lakes and rochester ny, i don't know why you have a problem with what Eve said
i don't. i know what they're talking about
there is no need to get reflexively angry at Eve just because they didn't carve out special terms and conditions for the residents of Plattsburgh or Oswego 😂
it's a social media post not a legal document
look for intent and calm the fuck down
This entry was edited (Tuesday, February 24, 2026, 3:47 PM)
Live, non-stop coverage as blizzard-like conditions continue across the Tri-State area. A state of emergency remains in effect as heavy snow and gusty winds ...
Pretty scary how ordinary people are doing the billionaires' jobs for them by instinctively censoring any voices critical of the system. I think un-learning this reflex is one of the most important things we can do right now.
I love this, but I am a suspicious person so have to ask: how is it that his voice remains exactly as loud and clear when she pulls the mic away from him?
Live, non-stop coverage as blizzard-like conditions continue across the Tri-State area. A state of emergency remains in effect as heavy snow and gusty winds ...
one realizes he is no politician. At least here in Germany, when a journalist asks a question, a real politician starts to speak. But the - I will stretch the truth here by calling it - content has got nothing to do with anything in the question: neither with individual words nor its sentiment. But still, the microphone is not taken away nor is he bleeped out or something of the kind. Here, however, this is the case, so clearly: no politician!
Hacktivists tried to find a workaround to Discord’s age-verification software, Persona. Instead, they found its frontend exposed to the open internet, and that was just the beginning.
Discord is carrying on like their previous age verification vendor didn’t leak a bunch of users’ sensitive data (because they were retaining said data which Discord claimed they weren’t going to do).
""" Persona’s exposed code compares your selfie to watchlist photos using facial recognition, screens you against 14 categories of adverse media from mentions of terrorism to espionage, and tags reports with codenames from active intelligence programs consisting of public-private partnerships to combat online child exploitative material, cannabis trafficking, fentanyl trafficking, romance fraud, money laundering, and illegal wildlife trade.
Once a user verifies their identity with Persona, the software performs 269 distinct verification checks and scours the internet and government sources for potential matches... """
So to keep kids safe from online predators, we're willing to *horribly* invade their privacy and sell all their data to predators? I see the system is working as intended 😮💨
@alice ...and I'm pretty sure, if your name and picture is on the right list, your location will be hit by a hellfire missile fired from a reaper drone after you performed mandatory age verification. America! Fuck, yeah! @evacide
We won't surveill you And if we do it won't be that bad And if it was, at least it's secure And if it' not we didn't mean it And if we did you deserved it
and meanwhile the Australian government is claiming credit for protecting children by standing up to social media companies to force them to use this kind of tech.
I’m sure the pressure is in the opposite direction.
@ollicle Yep. It's brilliant from a certain perspective. Horrifying, sinister, but with a certain genius.
The tech firms get to say "Oh, no, the horrible government is making us do this. Oh well. Now give us your identity documents."
The governments get to give the appearance of responding to (genuinely) grieving parents, and say "we're protecting the children" which is game over for any alternative voice. All the while receiving funding (directly or indirectly) from the tech firms that created the problem or the supposed solution, or their fellow travellers.
And parents get to believe their children's safety is taken care of.
This level of centralisation of data is so so dangerous. Putting all our eggs in one basket digitally makes for a very inviting target, but this sort of infrastructure also concentrates power.
Knowledge is power, and this level of control can easily calcify our political systems and eat away at democracy.
Hey, maybe don’t verify yourself on LinkedIn. What an absolute shitshow:
#privacy #linkedin #surveillancecapitalism
https://thelocalstack.eu/posts/linkedin-identity-verification-privacy/
surely Discord's third age-verification partner will be completely TRUSTED and DEPENDABLE and not at all part of the Torment Nexus being built around these services.
@deborahh@cosocial.ca @evacide@hachyderm.io That's why *"#KYC IS THE ILLICIT ACTIVITY!"*
- I mean, there's a [*trivial bypass*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LsF4FF6gO4) but #Discord itself is garbage!
I am not the first person to point out that a “Luddite” isn’t someone who hates tech — they hated the EXPLOITATION OF PEOPLE by capital through the use of tech. Too many of my peers are on the wrong side of that and a lot of us are watching and making notes and will remember.
Yesterday Cory Doctorow argued that refusal to use LLMs was mere "neoliberal purity culture". I think his argument is a strawman, doesn't align with his own actions and delegitimizes important political actions we need to make in order to build a better cyberphysical world.
EDIT: Diskussions under this are fine, but I do not want this to turn into an ad hominem attack to Cory. Be fucking respectful
Live is complicated. Regardless of what your beliefs or politics or ethics are, the way that we set up our society and economy will often force you to act against them: You might not want to fly somewhere but your employer will not accept another mod…
@pluralistic I gave it a good thought, and you know what, I'm gonna argue that yes, for me there is a degree of unethical-ness to that lack of permission!
the things that makes me not mind that so much are a variety of differences in method and scale;
(*btw just explaining my personal reasons here, not arguing yours)
- every word in the OED was painstakingly researched by human experts to make the most possible sense of it
- coming from a place of passion on the end of the linguists, no doubt
- the ownership of said data isn't "techno-feudal mega-corporations existing under a fascist regime"
- the OED didn't spell the end of human culture (heh) like LLMs very much might.
so yeah. I guess we do agree that, on some level, the OED and an LLM have something in similar.
it's the differences in method and scale that make me draw the line somewhere in between them; in a different spot from where you may draw it.
and like @
... Show more...
@pluralistic I gave it a good thought, and you know what, I'm gonna argue that yes, for me there is a degree of unethical-ness to that lack of permission!
the things that makes me not mind that so much are a variety of differences in method and scale;
(*btw just explaining my personal reasons here, not arguing yours)
- every word in the OED was painstakingly researched by human experts to make the most possible sense of it
- coming from a place of passion on the end of the linguists, no doubt
- the ownership of said data isn't "techno-feudal mega-corporations existing under a fascist regime"
- the OED didn't spell the end of human culture (heh) like LLMs very much might.
so yeah. I guess we do agree that, on some level, the OED and an LLM have something in similar.
it's the differences in method and scale that make me draw the line somewhere in between them; in a different spot from where you may draw it.
and like @zenkat mentioned elsewhere, it's the whole thing around LLMs that makes me very wary of normalizing anything to do with it, and I concede I wouldn't mind your slightly unethical LLM spellchecker as much, if we didn't live in this horrible context. :)
I guess this has become a bit of a reconciliatory toot. agree to disagree on where we draw the line, to each their own, and all that.
I hate to dive into what is clearly a heated debate, but I want to add an answer to your question with a perspective that I think is missing: the power consumption for inference on your laptop is probably greater than in a datacenter. The latter is heavily incentivized to optimize power usage, since they charge by CPU usage or tokens, not watt-hours. (Power consumption != environmental damage exactly, but I have no idea how to estimate that part.)
This entry was edited (Friday, February 20, 2026, 5:39 PM)
The original strawman was somewhat acceptable ("if you refuse to use things touched by evil completely you can't use computers, so we all draw a line somewhere and this is where I draw mine" yadda yadda), but what follows is a pristine example of "man slips on a slippery slope, and slips a lot". :D
It's why I'm (lately) preternaturally cautious around "very loud" voices. Part of their ability to formulate & disseminate their contrarian view is dismissing some views & focusing on core principles. If you don't keep counterbalancing voices close, it's extraordinarily easy for that methodology to abruptly send you far off the path.
wow this is so disappointing about Cory Doctorow. I find your take more level headed.
I find it also very analogous to how I hate Facebook/Meta but I have to maintain my instagram account to keep in touch with some friends even if I hardly browse around instagram anymore. I do think there’s a way to reluctantly do things you don’t really agree with, like using instagram, driving cars, flying, using plastics, etc. and it’s still a big difference from not putting up a fight at all.
Thank you for writing this; I feel like it's a necessary counterpoint. I definitely agree more with you than I do with Cory on this one. But I also feel a bit like you're talking past each other a bit. The difficulty with Internet Discourse like this is that in order to avoid harassment we are often arguing with large, nebulous collectives rather than calling out individuals. I think that Cory is correct that the *line of argument* he is criticizing is in fact fallacious.
The question about the strawman is: is anyone comprehensively, seriously making this argument? I don't think so. I think a lot of people are extremely fucking angry for justifiable reasons and directionlessly and not particularly coherently lashing out in ways that look "purity culture"-ish. You can see it all over the replies here, with Cory mixing it up, which sure seems to prove the point! *I* don't feel like this constitutes a serious argument, but it's still, like… there
1. Some people are making a comprehensive argument against the use of LLMs, well-supported on all sides. 2. This metastasizes into a yelling match about "AI", with fuzzy boundaries and highly emotionally charged language, with a lot of participants who aren't necessarily experts or do not have the time to make a careful argument. 3. Cory picks a fight with this *real* but not-particularly-robust position, skipping stronger counterarguments.
Your abstract arguments are a good counter-position but are still missing something: a specific, situated critique of local models. A lot of the structural properties and material impacts that you describe are specific to the big, hosted models. You veer off into criticizing OpenAI pretty early, which doesn't apply to open-weight, on-device models that Cory is talking about.
I think you successfully argue that artifacts *do* have politics, but you fall apart a bit on what the politics of local LLMs *are*. The argument that their politics "are violence" but that argument almost entirely applies to Google's regular "non-AI" (arguably not accurate since neural nets have been involved for years before LLMs) search index. Is a google search the same kind of "violence" as a local LLM?
Ugh okay this is too many replies, thanks again for writing this, sorry for getting into so much nit-picking, I just need to write my own "it's time to stop using LLMs" omnibus that collects my own perspective on the *different* reasons one should avoid hosted vs. local models
@glyph I could have been clearer on the local open weight model. Energy etc is a bit less of an issue there, I think they are problematic for the required training that needs data centers and big tech scaling on order work: One gets a small gift from Big Tech than one can use as freeware - as a treat. So I think the violence/extraction logic still holds because without that form of extraction these models would not exist.
@glyph but thank you for your remarks. Maybe I should write about local models a bit more. (But I kinda got nerdsniped into writing an extended outline for a (german) "The case against AI" book so I might write it there and later port it back to non-niche languages.
@glyph And no need for apologies. I always appreciate your well-thought responses - especially when they show me where I might have been wrong or lazy in my thinking or writing. Thank you for reading and taking the time to responding in detail. I appreciate it.
@twifkak @simonzerafa parsing a doc uses as much juice as streaming a Youtube video and less juice than performing a gnarly transform on a hi-rez in the Gimp.
Again, this feels dismissive, and dodges the argument. The clarity I was referring to wasn't the use case you laid out (automated proofreading) or the platform (Ollama), but (as has been discussed at length through this thread of conversation) which models are being employed.
This entire conversation has been centered around how currently available models not evil due to vague notions of who incepted the technology they're based upon, but the active harm employed in their creation.
To return to the discussion I'm attempting to have here, I find your fruits of the poisoned tree argument weak, particularly when you're invoking William Shockley (who is most assuredly had no direct hand in the transistors installed in the hardware on my desk nor their component materials) as a counterpoint to the stolen work and egregious cost that are intrinsic to even the toy models out there. It reads to me as employing hyperbole and false equivalence defensively rather than focusing on why what you're comfortable using is, well, comfortable.
@Colman @Life_is I'll always remember him having a right go at some woman working at a coffee stand at the most recent London Worldcon. I intervened because I wanted coffee and I wasn't sure if he was there for the five minute argument or the full half hour, and he flounced off.
@pluralistic @FediThing Unless you consider stolen intellectual property (and ongoing copyright violations) a harm, a deprivation, &c.
But your general analogy against "fruit of the poison tree" morality would seem to also apply in the case of slavery -- in my hypothetical, the person didn't enslave anyone. They just inherited a slave from someone who did. That is indeed "fruit of a poisoned tree", even if they just continued an existing enslavement.
We have a real world recent example -- the cell lines stolen from Henrietta Lacks. Do you dismiss any moral concerns about using her cell line without consent as a neo-liberal moral purity trap?
> LLMs are based on extraction, exploitation and subjugation
So is torrenting. This is a very capitalist argument, coming from someone that self-identifies as a communist, that one deserves to reap the rewards of them adding value to humanity through some form of gatekeeping and is entitled to a reward from such gatekeeping. You're literally arguing on the side of Elsevier and JSTOR against Aaron Swartz
What does it matter if human knowledge is available as a book or an LLM? The important part is that all of humanity has access to it.
> Omelas is an almost perfect city. Rich, democratic, pleasant. But it only works by having one small child in perpetual torment.
Walking away from Omelas doesn't stop that child's perpetual torment. Your choice is merely ignorance and cowardice in front of injustice. Choosing to stay in Omelas and poison its democratic system to lead to its downfall is the arguably the more moral option. Let's not even get into the argument about how Germany made the Eurozone its Omelas at the expense of deficit-prone southern Europe, a
... Show more...
> LLMs are based on extraction, exploitation and subjugation
So is torrenting. This is a very capitalist argument, coming from someone that self-identifies as a communist, that one deserves to reap the rewards of them adding value to humanity through some form of gatekeeping and is entitled to a reward from such gatekeeping. You're literally arguing on the side of Elsevier and JSTOR against Aaron Swartz
What does it matter if human knowledge is available as a book or an LLM? The important part is that all of humanity has access to it.
> Omelas is an almost perfect city. Rich, democratic, pleasant. But it only works by having one small child in perpetual torment.
Walking away from Omelas doesn't stop that child's perpetual torment. Your choice is merely ignorance and cowardice in front of injustice. Choosing to stay in Omelas and poison its democratic system to lead to its downfall is the arguably the more moral option. Let's not even get into the argument about how Germany made the Eurozone its Omelas at the expense of deficit-prone southern Europe, and how you should leave Germany by your argument.
> If everything is somehow “free and open” then we have won.
your moral choice to not use LLMs is the same as abandoning Omelas and the eternally tormented child, it serves as nothing but intellectual onanism. Distilling GPT 5, Opus 4.6, commoditising the petaflop (see George Hotz), deploying efficient models on Huawei chips is the same as causing rot in Omelas from the inside, causing the billions invested into AI to be worthless, tearing down the system that is perpetually tormenting that child. It is the only way forward.
Cory was right to label this "neolib purity testing", because 1) it sides with capital (see above point re: torrenting), 2) it tries to don the mantel of dialectical materialism, while viewing this issue through a lens of "individualist action" and static morality and 3) It endlessly criticises power instead of aiming to claim and wield it for good.
This entry was edited (Friday, February 20, 2026, 6:08 PM)
For about ~30k I can run deepseek on a rig in my apartment, forever. That's pennies for a startup. How do you envision this bubble bursting such that LLMs are gone?
@FediThing @pluralistic Some people - in fact quite a lot; if my reading is correct - do indeed argue that LLMs can *never* be ethically used because they are “trained on stolen work”.
Using LLMs to search the universe for dark matter using survey telescopic data or to identify drug efficacy using anonymized public health records is simply using the latest technology for good purpose.
that’s the broader field of machine learning. not LLMs
LLMs are by and large unethical cognitive decline inducing generators of soulless slop.
It really depends a bit on the details, doesn't it. If I copy a CD, I also perform some mathematical analysis on it, error checking etc. Maybe I even make a non-exact copy by passing it through some filter to make it sound better. But it's totally different from listening to a bunch of Beatles songs and then getting inspired to write my own songs in a similar style.
This entry was edited (Friday, February 20, 2026, 6:46 PM)
@drdrowland @ianbetteridge @FediThing You're talking about ways of using models, not the creation of models. It's possible to make a model that does illegal things. But training a model is not illegal.
@pluralistic @ianbetteridge @FediThing It's still profit loss damage curable by income transfer if the illegally acquired data was used to create that profit. Dataset prominence should provide the percentage of profits and prominence is data size but also inference casualty. The primary literature should not be able to be diluted with free intellectual property.
I don't know if any of this is actual case law and I'm not a lawyer.
FYI, rockets are enormously environmentally destructive (fuel, pollution, noise, etc.). The planet would be better off with as few rockets launching as possible.
Saying an LLM is OK because some completely other "good" technology was invented by evil people is a *non argument*.
@pluralistic @ianbetteridge @FediThing “Mathematical analysis” is doing a lot of work here. It could mean gathering meaningless statistics. Or it could mean capturing the qualities (deviations from the average) that make a particular work of art (or author) special, creative, surprising—for use in simulacra.
I think that's harmful, to the culture as a whole, if not to the artworks and artists getting regurgitated.
I don't give a shit really but it's funny he's enraged his fans who think he's super smart and a great sci fi writer when he's really only good at fluffing himself. At least Gaiman was a genuinely good writer - something Doctorow only dreams of. (I despise Gaiman and will not read or watch any of his stuff because he's a shit human being.)
@pluralistic @ianbetteridge @FediThing If that “mathematical analysis” regurgitates near verbatim works created by other people, it certainly is committing IP theft, and LLMs will happily do that. The “mathematical analysis” is effectively a form of lossy compression on its training data which a prompt can later extract.
@gleick @ianbetteridge @FediThing Let's stipulate to that (I don't agree, as it happens, but that's OK). It's still not a copyright infringement to enumerate and analyze the elements of a copyrighted work.
For the record, I think AI art is bad and neither consume nor make it.
@pluralistic @ianbetteridge @FediThing I’ll give you pedant points for copyright infringement, which is what most people mean by “IP theft”. As for training/using, the difference is somewhat moot. The models are trained to be used, and if trained on copyrighted data without a license, you’ve encoded that data into the model which might then regurgitate it thus facilitating copyright infringement.
@bjn @ianbetteridge @FediThing it is a bedrock of copyright law that devices 'capable of sustaining a substantial non-infringing use' are lawful. Decided in 1984 (SCOTUS/Betamax) and repeatedly upheld.
It is categorically untrue that merely because a model's output can infringe copyright that the model is therefore illegal.
There's not much that's truly settled in American limitations and exceptions, but this is.
@bjn @ianbetteridge @FediThing and as befits UK fair dealing (and related limitations and exceptions), we've had opinions from IPREG affirming that training a model doesn't infringe.
Then the laws are not fit for purpose. The whole point of copyright is to encourage people produce works by being sure they get the benefit of those works. If my works can be encoded into a bunch of matrix weights and reproduced without attribution let alone financial recompense, then why should I bother? Google is doing its best to effectively steal the bread out of creators mouths with its AI summaries. It may be legal, but it stinks.
This entry was edited (Friday, February 20, 2026, 7:46 PM)
@pluralistic @ianbetteridge @FediThing Well apart from Anthropic having to pay $1.5B for copyright infringement, it’s all above board, 🙄. It’s not a matter of liking the technology or not, machine learning is capable of cool and useful things. However, how LLMs are being used and pushed is both immoral and culturally destructive. I’m surprised you are buying into it.
Which "couple million people" suffer harm when I run a model ON MY LAPTOP?
Anyone who's hosting a website, and is getting hammered by the bots that seek content to train the models on. Those of us are the ones who continue getting hurt.
Whether you run it locally or not, makes little difference. The models were trained, and training very likely involved scraping, and that continues to be a problem to this day. Not because of ethical concerns, but technical ones: a constant 100req/sec 24/7, with over 2.5k req/sec waves may sound little in this day and age, but at around 2.5k req/sec (sustained for about a week!), my cheap VPS's two vCPUs are bogged down trying to deal with all the TLS handshakes, let alone serving anything.
That is a cost many seem to forget. It costs bandwidth, CPU, and human effort to keep things online under the crawler DDoS - which often will require cold, hard cash too, to survive.
Ask Codeberg or LWN how they fare under crawler load, and imagine someone who just wants to have their stuff online ha
... Show more...
Which "couple million people" suffer harm when I run a model ON MY LAPTOP?
Anyone who's hosting a website, and is getting hammered by the bots that seek content to train the models on. Those of us are the ones who continue getting hurt.
Whether you run it locally or not, makes little difference. The models were trained, and training very likely involved scraping, and that continues to be a problem to this day. Not because of ethical concerns, but technical ones: a constant 100req/sec 24/7, with over 2.5k req/sec waves may sound little in this day and age, but at around 2.5k req/sec (sustained for about a week!), my cheap VPS's two vCPUs are bogged down trying to deal with all the TLS handshakes, let alone serving anything.
That is a cost many seem to forget. It costs bandwidth, CPU, and human effort to keep things online under the crawler DDoS - which often will require cold, hard cash too, to survive.
Ask Codeberg or LWN how they fare under crawler load, and imagine someone who just wants to have their stuff online having to deal with similar abuse.
That is the suffering you enable when using any LLM model, even locally.
@liquor_american Agreed. The thing I don't get is embracing something so inefficient. Like, there are other, existing technologies that do the work he described *better*.
@flesh @osma Realistically, will rag tag groups of progressives on mastodon and bluesky refusing to use LLMs do anything to stop LLM proliferation? I mean even if we could dent openai MRR, there's still the PRC models to consider.
@mallory Reposting as the thread got broken: While I would not make fun of someone whose disability was incontinence, or disfigured, or big on general principle, the lack of accountability leaves us with inadequately giving back what that individual has sent out. I don't find that immoral and I'll die on that hill. If someone spent their time and platform to disparage others for their appearance, disabilities or weight, they absolutely can have that back, especially when said speaker is so physically repugnant to begin with. trump had no business judging others on any of those qualities, being so grotesque himself. I think the criticism of Cory's stance on LLMs is valid, picking at him for describing a man as he is is not.
@pluralistic @ianbetteridge @FediThing I'm not claiming that's copyright infringement. Even if one respects the general framework of copyright, which I know you don’t, it seems hopeless to apply it to this AI mess.
But there is a kind of theft here. Not that it's actionable or measurable. But it’s nontrivial. It's related to questions of impersonation. It's an assault on individuality. Whatever your reasons for thinking AI art is bad (I have some sense), it's related to that, too.
@pluralistic @ianbetteridge @FediThing Some authors have taken the view that they deserve some compensation for the use of their books in training the LLMs. Do the transaction and we're hunky-dory. That's not my view. I don't care about compensation; I just don't want my prose regurgitated in the LLMs, for reasons I'm not yet able to express properly. I feel I should have been asked, and I feel violated.
@pluralistic @gleick @ianbetteridge @FediThing there's been documented cases of LLMs regurgitating stuff from their training set verbatim, which clearly IS copyright infringement; and that means some parts of the training set are.encodrd in the weights of the model, which looks like publishing a copyrighted work to me. If publishing a JPEG of an image without copyright to it would be infringing, isn't publishing a model that can recreate something also infringing?
@pluralistic No, because dictionnaries are about language which is a shared common, encyclopedias are about knowledge, which is a shared common, and bibliohraphies are a list of works, not a derivative.
Knowledge, language and a list of works cannot be copyrighted. You can use language, knowledge, words from the dictionary. You can quote an encyclopedia when refering to the source. None of that is even relevant to this discussion.
I think there's a couple of aspects to the "theft": * the theft of material: they're trained on copyrighted material * the theft of jobs: AI is being used to replace artists/writers/coders; it's the same thing that upset the Luddites * the theft of style: not only does AI "learn" from the works of others, it can emulate it. On demand. Some artists have very unique, personal styles that are suddenly not their own anymore.
I think it is the case that many people who oppose the use of LLMs do so in a way which follows the pattern of purity culture -- in the particular way they are judgmental towards everyone who uses them
... however opposing the use of LLMs can still is a very reasonable moral act.
I think this plays out in this way because, at least in the USA, so much of people's idea of how to do morality is based in a certain kind of protestant Christianity
@pluralistic You should read the top-of-thread link. It lays out in detail the author's disagreements with you in a respectful manor.
Maybe you'll call it incoherent because you don't want to listen to accusations of going against your own principles, noone does. But I would disagree.
@pluralistic > untrue that merely because a model's output can infringe copyright that the model is therefore illegal.
Mhmmm naaah overfitting and memorization are very much a thing, especially in the case of LLM where they've completely given up on controlling data leaks, and where memorization has been demonstrated rather unambiguously e.g. with the suitesparse example...
Not to imply that "illegal" is bad ofc, or that copyright justifiable
@gleick @pluralistic @ianbetteridge @FediThing It's the regurgitation part. People read your work all the time, and are inspired by it to create their own works. I'm sure you're fine with that. But when they read your work and proceed to regurgitate chunks of it and claim it as their own? Because that's what the LLMs are doing all too often, and the reasons to object to LLMs doing it are the same as the ones to people doing it.
@pluralistic @bjn @ianbetteridge @FediThing I’d argue that It’s a bit more nuanced. Training and inference are two separate stages with their own rules.
For non profit, academic research, excerpts are allowed to be collected, but not the whole work. You still can’t circumvent DRM either.
Llama might be argued is non profit, but lifting whole works to train on still isn’t allowed.
I've struggled for a while to reconcile people's justified outrage at the AI bubble's incalculably harmful unsustainability with the need to deny that even the most banal utility of its outputs could ever possibly have merit.
Credit to @pluralistic for really articulating why I find the "Not Even Once" crowd to be largely missing the point, even if we all agree that the "AI True Believers" are ghoulish monsters.
So this is some kind of spell-checker, which is already in LibreOffice? I'm not sure why I would use that instead.
I use offline AI, esp for visual effects, subtitles, fixing dialogue errors, etc. There are "deep fake technologies" useful for mocap, camera tracking, and such other tedious works. They don't use prompts, and don't generate art, and are trained on your own inputs.
Perhaps we need a new name to differentiate it from the online genAI tech.
This entry was edited (Saturday, February 21, 2026, 7:28 AM)
If you follow anything I write or boost, you'll quickly note that I'm very vocal against AI. But that is a shorthand; my actual position is that I'm fine with the *tech*, strongly dislike the *waste* (where applicable), but my actual complaint is that the AI bubble is literally a fascist project.
Outside of FOMO, every reason people use or promote AI based things in this bubble is designed to...
@dhd6 @pluralistic @simonzerafa ... disenfranchise people, by partially replacing them with a machine that imitates their work. And unlike people, machines can be owned.
Their output functions like a natural resource (except it's not natural), and there is insurmountable historic precedent that this promotes tyrannies. The TL;DR of it being that when you can mine natural resources, you are less reliant on a fed, educated, healthy, mobile population - so public spending becomes a waste.
@dhd6 @pluralistic @simonzerafa The problem isn't ingesting text from the web. The problem isn't using this to generate new text, or spell check existing text.
The problem is that capitalist logic demands that this is used to move "value" from the general population to property oligarchs own. Marx would have started talking about labour here.
That this promotes fascism is certainly the effect, and when you look at those who stand to win, probably also the reason.
@dhd6 @simonzerafa So, yes, whether something is or isn't open plays into that, and I get the complaint.
But at the same time, it's a distraction.
The general position @pluralistic holds in the blog post is very much in line with distinguishing between the tech and the bubble.
Personally, I feel like responding to that with "yeah, but it's not good enough" is a very good example of the kind of Leftist purity culture that is so, so effective at hindering collaboration.
@pluralistic @elle @dhd6 @simonzerafa I beg to differ. Demand is a powerful and legit tool of people responding to corporate behavior. Choosing a different product because you dislike a maker's conduct is nought but the invisible hand of the market slapping that maker for their conduct. Provenience does matter.
Smearing choice of provenience as wilful purism would be the perfect argument for any company to disregard social or ethical standards, constituting a right to demand for the 'best' offer. Which would take us into the field of classic objectivism, and be in itself as willful and naive as the purism it accuses consumers of.
@pluralistic After reading so many comments, it is pretty clear who here would be opposing the creation of Napster and torrenting and be defending RIAA... They are also clearly very much against Internet Archive, shadow libraries, etc, simply because they can't take any disagreement.
Who knew running a local LLM, that uses the same energy as watching a youtube video, to spellcheck your own work would bring out such a mob.
computers make copying essentially free. LLMs are just one instance of that. We should adapt to copying being free, because after LLMs there will be inventions that make copying even easier. Strongly reducing copyright protection (and other forms of IP) is part of that. As is enforcing anti-monopoly law
Not that I care about Doctorow but do you use only ethical technology? I think it's fair not wanting to use ChatGPT but calling LLMs or worse "AI" (a whole computer science field) the devil is plainly silly. And it's not like it's going anywhere
@sibrosan this reminds me of Ship of Theseus as in every time one outsources the art to a tool there will become a point where one does not have the craft of the art anymore.
In this case, the art of grammar checking and the tool being a LLM. By constantly using a LLM to do the grammar checking, one is replacing the art of grammar checking slowly through time to the point that nothing on the original art of grammar checking is equivalent to the current version.
@pluralistic @correl @skyfaller @FediThing @tante massive oversimplification. This is the wording of a policy I support…. It… disagrees….
“Employees must not enter personal information, confidential information, or intellectual property into any Artificial Intelligence Tool, including approved tools, as doing so may expose …… to privacy breaches, legal and security risks, or loss of control over institutional data.”
Life is complicated. Regardless of what your beliefs or politics or ethics are, the way that we set up our society and economy will often force you to act against them: You might not want to fly somewhere but your employer will not accept another mod…
> Again, it twists the argument in the way that the AI corporations like to do it as well: Search engines scour the web so AI companies should be allowed the same. It’s the same technology!
Just to add to your argument, there is another key difference between scraping for searching and scraping for LLMs. Scraping for searching does have the concept of consent (if imperfect): it's opt-out, you can always say that you don't consent to your website (wholly or in parts) be scraped (by specific search engines or all of them), in your `robots.txt` controlled by you, and your decision will be respected. And this works also for revoking previous implicitly (or even explicitly) given consent. As far as I'm aware no LLM honors `robots.txt`, and even if they would, they still don't and cannot offer any mechanism for consent revocation.
Is refusing buy a Tesla or use X because I disapprove of Musks racism and suport of Trump, "neoliberal purity culture" ? Maybe putting solar on my house is "neoliberal purity culture" too, as is refusing to cross a picket line. Seems like Doctorow uses "purity culture" to mean what I would call "moral responsibility". As for "neoliberal", insofar as it retains any meaning, it's much more applicable to the kind of free market libertarian argument that Doctorow is making than otherwise.
@pluralistic @bazkie @FediThing @prinlu encyclopedias don't say: look i made a painting, wanna buy? but all that is kinda offtopic, imo there are plenty of reasons to not use LLM, besides that commons/copyright stuff, wich are not purist and very much based on real-world-issues. in a perfect world, theft won't be an issue (imo), because we had overcome money and fossil energy. but using genLLM still would be morally wrong, because of its dangers, due to bias and failures. …/
The problem with AI is not primarily with tech itself, but human traits of laziness, greed and ignoring unpriced externalities for short-sighted personal gains. Those of course exist even without AI, but AI allows for their damage to be multiplied many thousandfold which upgrades it from minor annoyance to existential crisis.
And the problem with Cory saying he's preferring using his AI is not exact cost of him using AI model (which is tiny), it is NORMALIZING 1/3
This entry was edited (Monday, February 23, 2026, 4:58 PM)
People should be able to write software for Android, and distribute it outside Google's Play store, without having to:
* pay Google * give government ID to Google * agree to Google terms and conditions
People should be able to install the software they want on their phone, from sources other than Google's Play store, without having to jump through Google-imposed hoops.
e.g. via F-Droid.
We've got until September this year to stop Google squeezing the open Android ecosystem.
I'm sure you're already aware Epic Games have an ongoing legal battle with Google/Apple about putting their own store on Android/iOS based on the same principles.
This entry was edited (Tuesday, February 17, 2026, 5:54 PM)
@KeefJudge It is important to remember that Epic Games is a corporation focused on maximizing profit, not free software or user freedom. Also, Epic v. Google is a lawsuit between two private parties. Epic and Google are working on a business deal right now, this is highly likely to undermine any potential benefits that lawsuit could have for the rest of us. To the point: that lawsuit is useful but not enough.
@illumniscate It doesn't directly impact GrapheneOS. It won't have this enforcement. We'd have to go out of the way to make integration with an opt-in toggle for it and aren't interested in it rather than other approaches to verifying app authenticity/trustworthiness.
@GrapheneOS @illumniscate are you guys going to be adversely impacted by the updated semi-annual release schedule for AOSP, assuming Google's still planning that change?
@eigen @GrapheneOS @illumniscate GrapheneOS is not affected by update issues, and thanks to their collaboration with a major Android OEM since June 2025, GrapheneOS can offer security preview releases. discuss.grapheneos.org/d/27068…
@j2 @illumniscate Gaël Duval has extensively spread misinformation about GrapheneOS and /e/ to falsely market his products for his for-profit company. He has engaged in extensive libel and harassment towards our team. Here's an example of him linking to harassment content based on fabrications on a blatant neo-nazi conspiracy website, which he has done repeatedly:
@j2 @illumniscate /e/ has poor privacy and extraordinarily bad security. It lacks basic privacy and security patches/protections. It isn't a safe option but rather is a grift not fit for purpose. Strongly recommend reading discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134… and the linked sources. /e/ and Murena services are not safe and do not respect user privacy. They heavily mislead users about what's provided including relentlessly lying about highly important missing privacy/security patches/protections.
@j2 @illumniscate /e/ is a fork of LineageOS, which is far less bad but not a privacy/security hardened OS. LineageOS is based on AOSP like GrapheneOS. AOSP isn't impacted by Google Play enforced restrictions on app installations, but it has been announced those can be turned off or bypassed by power users at least initially anyway. Some people integrate Google Play with privileged access into other operating systems like LineageOS where it may be relevant but they could bypass it.
In this discussion on Hacker News, a user who has used Murena products confirms that /e/OS completely breaks Android's security model, signed with Google's test keys with an unlocked bootloader that cannot be locked, which would have been pointless since these test keys are not intended for production. Of course, users duped by Murena's misleading marketing will claim that this is not important and assert that the GrapheneOS project is toxic, but correcting misinformation has never been toxic behavior.
There are many other problems with /e/. Gael Duval is a scammer, and he, his team, and his community are involved in spreading misinformation about GrapheneOS and its users. In fact, the people in this Hacker News thread who are attacking GrapheneOS for things it doesn't do are users of /e/.
During the last five years, I spent a fairly significant amount of time developing an android app. I got a developer account and had an alpha release on the play store. Unfortunately, personal circumstances took my focus away from it for some time, and by the time I got back to it, my account had been deleted after I hadn't responded to one of their requests.
I found the sign up process unpleasant and intrusive, so the idea of going through it again is not appealing. Naturally, I thought about putting my app on another store. The idea of that company being in control of what I can provide to other people to run on their devices was enough to make me quit. I won't be releasing my work as long as this restriction is being held over us.
I should add: even having said all that, I can at least acknowledge that there is a case for IDs being checked before permitting apps to ship via their own store. I wish it wasn't the same company that's harvesting so much other personal data, but I do think it is preferable that apps are not published with no verified responsible person.
Once again, I'd be a lot more comfortable if identity verification could be done by a provider of my choice with only a token being passed to the store.
@GerardThornley One reason I release small apps as free software, not to Google, is that I want to let anyone interested continue when I switch to working on something else. Proprietary apps are forced dead when the initial developer prioritizes life. Companies behind Netscape and StarOffice realized it in time for their apps to survive. I think any company soon to close should mimic them. At least so that oligopolies forcing them out of the market don't get away with it for free.
Not saying i agree with Google. But how is the OS community going to fight the forces of evil trying to hijack our code?
Between malware labs, ai slop and slop powered malware labs, i am worried. The idea of making sure real accountable humans are writing honest code seems appealing....
@steve Compared to a wild west anything goes lord of the flies app repo? Probably.
I yearn for the day when OSS can provide a trustworthy app ecosystem that can also let devs earn a living - something easy and consolidated yet safe from enshitification. But in my 15 years as a linux user and oss enthusiast, things have just gotten more fragmented. Seems this is now androids future too...
@TrimTab I would say the OS community can offer tools, but it is up to the app store operators to decide what they can host, and we certainly should not be putting the final say for other app stores in the hands of a company that does not successfully manage their own.
@Thales_Curiosities This is a small volunteer effort so far, we need help to make it a success. Get involved! Could you set up this email that you are thinking about?
Well, I've given up. Again.
I think the Android ecosystem is entirely hopeless. Android may technically be 'open source', but in name only. Not in practice.
Google and the hardware manufacturers have an iron grip that they'll never relinquish.
I'm with you on this. The list of disabled ('cos I can't uninstall) Google apps on my phone is impressively long and includes play services and play store. I rely on F-Droid and, heaven help me APKpure - which has both the additional apps I can't get from F-Droid but also the worlds biggest collection of UX anti patterns for flinging ads in every conceivable way and at all times. Hate it but still prefer it to Google.
I hate this new proposal from Google but don't know what to do. Polite suggestions welcome 😇
@jrdepriest for both Google and Apple, I’d really like their built in stores to be all about trust and uphold a guarantee that apps have been checked and conform to a level of safety privacy accessibility and reliability to reach the App Store. Give a choice of where to download from, but also make the App Store presence mean something
There is nothing to "keep" open. Android was never open. They astroturfed an entire "open alliance" to... force all participants to push their apps and prohibit any and all forks. Since like 2008!
Android was never open, and at least they're finally honest about it.
This entry was edited (Wednesday, February 18, 2026, 1:27 AM)
You're in the legal biz Neil (I think?): is this a question on which the Competition & Markets Authority have some jurisdiction? I guess, bcs Apple, it's not strictly creating a monopoly, but it's definitely restricting the market.
@Charlie_House Google's Android Developer Verification gives them the possibility to prevent any app from running on all Android devices, no matter the source. That is why there is this campaign. Even if you get the app from F-Droid, Aurora, etc. etc. Google would still be able to prevent it from running
@zhx1 There's no near term plan to change it. We'll also still be using Matrix and Discord even if we start trying something new. We could eventually replace both in the very long term but we have a lot of requirements and it would be a slow transition to anything else. We probably wouldn't get rid of Discord but rather would be primarily replacing Matrix with another open source option but without federation.
I have absolutely no idea what this might mean for the two devices I have that run custom Android installs with unique apps (Boox ereader and FiiO media player), but... ah... this doesn't sound good.
@danieldk Android is mobile Linux. Linux doesn't mean glibc, systemd and GNOME. The desktop Linux software stack has atrocious privacy and security compared to the Android Open Source Project. There's a large and far better open source mobile app ecosystem for AOSP alongside the rest of the Android app ecosystem. Google's announced changes don't have any direct impact on an AOSP-based OS that's not licensing Google Mobile Services. The changes only amount to added UI friction for a GMS OS.
fair, but a lot of people mean SailfishOS, Plasma, Ubuntu Touch when they refer to 'mobile Linux', like (I assume) the person I was reacting to.
I completely agree with your criticism of the security and privacy of the desktop Linux stack. I have been trying to shout that off the rooftops for years, but it's an uphill battle.
This entry was edited (Friday, February 20, 2026, 5:03 PM)
@danieldk People mainly use the term that way because they're misinformed about Android. Many people wrongly believe Android requires a special variant of the Linux kernel with downstream patches when that hasn't been the case for years. It works with the kernel.org mainline and LTS kernels. Most distributions maintain their own LTS branches as Android does with the GKI branches. Unlike certain distributions such as Ubuntu, Android always bases downstream LTS branch on upstream LTS branches.
@danieldk I would, if it wasn't for the fact that it only runs on Pixel phones.
That makes GrapheneOS even more of a niche operating system than the various mobile Linux options, as at least they run on more than one brand of hardware.
I very deliberately opted for a #Fairphone, a device that, apart from its ethical and sustainability benefits, can run several alternative OSs.
I severely dislike what Android has grown into: an increasingly more restrictive OS, with artificially imposed limitations that we would not accept in our desktop OSs. It has enabled hardware manufacturers to lock users into a purely profit driven perpetual upgrade cycle.
Why can I install Linux on 15+ years old hardware, with ease, and use it with modern software, yet I cannot do the same with a mobile phone or tablet? It fuels an ever growing pile of electronic waste.
What I ultimately want from my mobile devices is the exact same freedom I have on my desktop.
@aerion @danieldk Fairphones have very poor updates, privacy and security regardless of OS choice.
Fairphone doesn't provide proper updates from day 1. Fairphone 5 launched September 2023 and already has an end-of-life 5.4 kernel branch with no plan to upgrade. They weren't providing the kernel updates when they were available themselves but another OS could have done it and now it's impractical. Fairphone similarly doesn't keep the drivers, firmware and other components properly updated.
@aerion @danieldk Pixels are the only smartphones with competitive hardware, firmware and software security with iPhones. They're the only non-iOS devices providing reasonably good long term updates and support. Fairphone markets their devices as providing it but they don't actually do it. They're lagging a year or more behind on OS updates, skipping non-yearly updates entirely and a month or two behind on the bare minimum Android schedule for patches which are available to ship earlier.
@aerion @danieldk The vast majority of smartphones either don't allow installing another OS or have extremely poor support for it including crippling the security of the device if people do it. In general, people who want to use another OS on a smartphone need to buy a device with it in mind. Supporting more models wouldn't change much especially a device like the Fairphone with far less distribution than Pixels. What would be the purpose of supporting an insecure device with bad updates?
@aerion @danieldk Fairphones are missing important hardware-based security features. They use largely the same components as other phones but it's quite outdated hardware for overly high prices. Buying newly produced outdated hardware with poor updates is hardly sustainable. The reality is more resources are likely used to produce each than an iPhone due to the efficiency of scale. iPhones have far better updates, also provide long term parts/repairs and much better privacy + security.
@aerion @danieldk GrapheneOS is a privacy and security hardened OS and has hardware requirements based on it. The only laptops/desktops meeting similar requirements are from Apple but it's unclear how much of the security features could be used elsewhere.
GrapheneOS and the Android Open Source Project are Linux distros. It's not glibc, systemd and GNOME which make it Linux. Most of the software you're calling Linux isn't even Linux specific but rather also works on FreeBSD, Hurd, etc.
@aerion @danieldk GrapheneOS has a large and rapidly growing userbase. Many people care about privacy and security who aren't misled into believing operating systems and hardware far worse at both than an iPhone are the answer.
Instead of supporting devices not meeting bare minimum privacy and security standards, we're working on proper devices meeting our full requirements with an OEM partner. They're one of the largest smartphone companies and are announcing our partnership next month.
@aerion @danieldk Many people want a genuinely highly private and secure device with many years of proper updates. They can get that with an iPhone and they can get it with GrapheneOS as an open source alternative. GrapheneOS is succeeding and becoming increasingly mainstream. It's far more usable and suited for production use than any of the alternatives. The fact that we won't take the shortcut of using insecure devices is why a major OEM is actively working on making what we need.
@aerion Android is mobile Linux. Linux doesn't mean glibc, systemd and GNOME. The desktop Linux software stack has atrocious privacy and security compared to the Android Open Source Project. There's a large and far better open source mobile app ecosystem for AOSP alongside the rest of the Android app ecosystem. Google's announced changes don't have any direct impact on an AOSP-based OS that's not licensing Google Mobile Services. The changes only amount to added UI friction for a GMS OS.
@xethos You're misinformed about Android and are making inaccurate statements about it. We're providing accurate information.
Android doesn't require any downstream kernel patches and works fine with mainline Linux kernels. All of the kernel drivers for Android are typically open source. The issue of SoC vendors and other hardware vendors providing software support in the form of proprietary libraries and services such as the ARM Mali GPU library isn't specific to Android or caused by Android.
@xethos The reason we replied is to avoid misconceptions. Your reply demonstrations you're misinformed about this yourself.
Android doesn't require any downstream kernel patches and works fine with mainline Linux kernels. All of the kernel drivers for Android are typically open source. The issue of SoC vendors and other hardware vendors providing software support in the form of proprietary libraries and services such as the ARM Mali GPU library isn't specific to Android or caused by Android.
@xethos The way the term mainline is used by the upstream Linux project is to refer to the tags made by Linus for the release candidate and point zero releases. The upstream stable and longterm branches are separate things. Most distributions use the upstream longterm branches as the basis for their own kernels with additional backports, etc. Upstream provides 2 years of support and many distributions maintain their own LTS branches much longer. Ubuntu often uses a non-upstream-LTS for theirs.
@xethos Android follows upstream LTS releases far more closely than Ubuntu. In fact, the person leading the work on the upstream LTS kernels (Greg KH) works for Google and maintains the GKI LTS branch for Google too. The upstream LTS kernels have Android as their main target. Pixel 6 moving to 5 years of support is why the kernel.org LTS kernels had support extended to 5 years. Pixels began moving to new LTS branches and moved to 7 years so upstream LTS dropped to 2 years. Is Ubuntu not Linux?
@GrapheneOS @aerion a Linux distro has a different threat model than an Android "distro".
This is exactly what people mean when they say that GrapheneOS people (and in particular this [official?] account in this case) are quite aggressive disparaging all the other ecosystems.
Don't get me wrong, I liked GrapheneOS while I had it (I had to return the Pixel device I was using it on), but I don't like this behavior.
@mdione @aerion > a Linux distro has a different threat model than an Android "distro".
Android distributions are Linux distributions. Desktop Linux distributions don't truly have a different threat model but provide much weaker privacy and security than the Android Open Source Project. They lack modern exploit protections, broad use of memory safe languages and a mandatory app sandbox. They only have very incomplete app sandboxing without a modern permission model available for it.
@GrapheneOS @aerion Linux "classical" distros come from a position where the soft available to them are pre curated by the companies and or communities building them, so the need for such things are no so pressing.
Andorid distros face applications that mostly not curated (except for 3rd party repos like f-droid, which are also pre curated by the communities), so they have other threat models. Personally, I find them too extreme, but currently is the best option on phones.
@mdione @aerion Neither open source or distribution packaging inherently provide privacy or security. It's not the case that people only use software from official repositories regardless.
Contrary to the common misconception, only using software from distribution repositories doesn't avoid trusting the upstream developers and doesn't address supply chain attacks. As an example, Debian shipped a backdoor in sshd after it was included in the xz project as part of the published sources.
@GrapheneOS @aerion yes, and there was the other issue with ssh keys back in '07-'08. And yet I trust them and the upstream developers more than a plain (that is, not including GrapheneOS or LineageOS) or OEM Android system.
@mdione @aerion A plain Android system without modification in a fork is the Android Open Source Project. It provides a much higher level of privacy and security. LineageOS reduces privacy and security compared to that baseline but is still far more private and secure than traditional desktop Linux distributions.
Stock Pixel OS and every other OEM variant of Android are forks of AOSP just like GrapheneOS. AOSP is the reference implementation of Android and is the upstream project for it.
@GrapheneOS @aerion Yes, but OEMs are full of apps that collect your info in all ways possible. That's why I like that GrapheneOS is 100% degoogled from the start, and you can loosen the grip as needed.
@mdione @aerion > This is exactly what people mean when they say that GrapheneOS people (and in particular this [official?] account in this case) are quite aggressive disparaging all the other ecosystems.
We posted a reply addressing misconceptions with accurate information. There was nothing in any way aggressive about what we posted. You're making dishonest claims about GrapheneOS and our team as you've done previously. It's you who being aggressive and causing us to defend ourselves.
@GrapheneOS @aerion > The desktop Linux software stack has atrocious privacy and security compared to the Android Open Source Project.
Why did you chose the word "atrocious"? You don't find that aggressive? Don't you find aggressive the toot you deleted? Not even a "sorry, that's not what I/we meant" or anything...
@mdione @aerion You've repeatedly made inaccurate posts about GrapheneOS and our team including outright lying about us. You post aggressive responses to our replies which disparage us and try to portray us badly by framing what we've said in a negative light regardless of the fact that we've only posted an accurate technical comparison. You can't tolerate us defending ourselves and providing accurate information. You respond to that with aggression and toxicity. It's you who is toxic.
@mdione @aerion > Why did you chose the word "atrocious"?
It's an accurate and important description of the state of desktop operating systems. No one should be under the impression that a traditional desktop OS is providing strong privacy or security.
> You don't find that aggressive?
No, it's an accurate technical statement about Windows, desktop Linux distributions and to a lesser extent macOS compared to iOS and AOSP.
Meanwhile, you're disparaging us with dishonest claims...
Are there any devices or examples of running AOSP with a mainline Linux kernel? If not, then calling it "Mobile Linux" is IMO slightly incorrect, because are we really talking about the same "Linux" if it's some vendor abomination, plugged into a system that makes tons of vendor concessions to help fit it in?
@matthewcroughan @aerion Android follows upstream LTS more closely than Ubuntu. The person leading the work on the upstream LTS kernels (Greg KH) works for Google and maintains the GKI LTS branch for Google too. The upstream LTS kernels have Android as their main target. Pixel 6 moving to 5 years of support is why the kernel.org LTS kernels had support extended to 5 years. Pixels began moving to new LTS branches and moved to 7 years so upstream LTS dropped to 2 years. Is Ubuntu not Linux?
@matthewcroughan @aerion Android doesn't require any downstream kernel patches and works fine with mainline Linux kernels. All of the kernel drivers for Android are typically open source. The issue of SoC vendors and other hardware vendors providing software support in the form of proprietary libraries and services such as the ARM Mali GPU library isn't specific to Android or caused by Android. Android having a standard hardware abstraction layer with sandboxing isn't a vendor concession.
Why does it seem so unheard of then to run AOSP, or newer versions of AOSP-based operating systems than would usually be possible due to eBPF to older devices, that PostmarketOS has mainlined? A few years ago I got PostmarketOS with the main basics working okay with a very close to mainline kernel on an old unsupported uncommon msm8916 phone. As an insecure novelty, it would be cool to run Android 16 on a phone that ended support on Android 6, yet such examples seem to not exist .
@GrapheneOS According to the third party OS comparison, GrapheneOS is "deblobbed". Are there any intentions to replace proprietary userspace drivers with open alternatives, where they are available, like the Mali GPU driver library? (though Panfrost doesn't have the well tested and well documented android support like the mesa Adreno drivers)
With your new upcoming snapdragon devices, is there any intention to using turnip+zink, or turnip and freedreno instead of the proprietary drivers?
Trouble is: play services requiring apps, banking apps and the nonsense apps without which useless banking companies will not even let us use our own money. Sick and tired of this crap. Examples: citi bank, hdfc, icici, stanci, hsbc, and the list goes on... These do not work without pathetic gps and stuff. Govs give a shit.
& yes, I am fully aware of microg and stuff, which still does not help. I am with team FD, Aurora and few others.
This entry was edited (Thursday, February 19, 2026, 7:01 PM)
@GrapheneOS what I'm saying is that you express yourselves in a way that most people, as I heard, and me in particular, find aggressive, and as I understand, is what drives people away. I'm suggesting you to revise the way you communicate.
For instance, you say I'm lying. I don't think I lied. I just gave an opinion on the way you communicate.
The partnership is being announced in March 2026. The devices are planned for 2027. You'll need to replace your Pixel 6 prior to the devices launching. We don't recommend using end-of-life devices and don't expect Pixel 6 support to be extended. We may keep releasing basic updates for the Pixel 6 for a while but we won't pretend that applying AOSP backports and Linux kernel LTS revisions is enough. No more driver/firmware support will be the end of it being safe to use.
Distributing either developer builds of apps or builds done by packagers for an app repository will still work fine for both Google Mobile Services operating systems and alternatives including GrapheneOS.
On the Google Mobile Services operating systems, there's going to a more complex warning flow for apps signed with keys not belonging to Google Play verified developers.
Here's a better post about it with more accurate info on what's changing and the impact:
Google recently announced that starting next year, Android will require all apps to be registered by verified developers for users to install them on their devices, i.e.
It's hardly a crisis and won't result in any warnings being displayed for the vast majority of app distribution outside of the Play Store.
Not all open source app developers will want to perform the verification. Their apps can be signed and distributed by others willing to do it to avoid it being more complex to install the apps on Google Mobile Services devices.
It has no direct impact on GrapheneOS since we don't include GMS and don't give GMS apps privileged access when installed.
Our expectation is that it will remain possible to install the apps with developer options by using ADB and that they'll also likely provide a way to install them without ADB with a more complex warning flow. It's worth noting Play Protect already existed and was possible to bypass via ADB and the new API they added to AOSP for the more modern take on the planned feature can also be bypassed via ADB. They can likely implement it retroactively going back many years via a Google Play update.
"It is UNACCEPTABLE, monopolistic, intrusive & unnecessary. I only use apps from other stores and have disabled PlayServices & play store. I object to your data acquisitive practices and having bought my phone refuse your assertion that you should arbitrate my use of it through the lens of Google's commercial interest. Particularly your likely roadmap where you'll reject the software that keeps MY data and usage private and ad-free. If you refuse to acknowledge this need, I suspect I, and many like me will be moving to an Open OS. If the cost is that my bank app won't work, it'll be a pain but one I'll endure. "
Use this form to submit questions or feedback about the new Android developer verification requirements announced in August 2025.
You can learn more about the requirements in the Android developer verification guide. Sign up for early access here.
Maar intussen laten de VS en Nederland de Koerden keihard vallen, en weigert Nederland ook maar iets te doen aan de terreur die wij naar Syrië exporteerden.
There is a security researcher called Celeste, just like meee! Weirdly enough, that makes me happy 
Mullvad VPN
in reply to Mullvad VPN • • •First, Ashton Kutcher convinced the EU Commission that they could scan everything on an EU citizen’s phone or computer (messages, photos, emails, phone calls, all of it) for child sexual abuse material without, at the same time, looking at the content of other types of communication.
And then?
Cory Doctorow reshared this.
Mullvad VPN
in reply to Mullvad VPN • • •And then EU Commissioner Ylva Johansson presented the legislative proposal called Chat Control, which aimed to scan everything on all EU citizens' phones and computers (including conversations in end-to-end-encrypted messaging services). The message from the Commission was: we will only search for child sexual abuse material (CSAM).
And then?
Mullvad VPN
in reply to Mullvad VPN • • •And then experts from all over the world explained to her that the kind of scanning she was talking about (as Ylva described it: a drug-sniffing dog that can detect illegal content in a message without reading the message) simply cannot be done safely, and that Chat Control would mean the end of privacy and pose a security threat to all Europeans. Ylva responded with: “what about the children?”
And then?
Mullvad VPN
in reply to Mullvad VPN • • •And then it was revealed that Thorn, the organization founded by Ashton Kutcher and which had been lobbying for Chat Control from the beginning, was selling the kind of scanning technology that could be used for Chat Control – despite being registered as a charity organization in the EU’s lobbying registry.
And then?
Mullvad VPN
in reply to Mullvad VPN • • •And then it was revealed that Thorn, together with the EU Commission, had also started and funded “children’s rights organizations” that had supported the proposal. What appeared publicly to be charitable organizations were in fact lobby groups.
And then?
Mullvad VPN
in reply to Mullvad VPN • • •And then it was revealed that Europol wanted unlimited access and wanted to use the scanning for more than just child abuse crimes, saying that all data – also unfiltered and innocent material – should be stored because it “could at some point be useful to law enforcement”.
And then?
And then it was revealed that employees at Europol had joined Thorn, to lobby their old colleagues.
And then?
reshared this
Verna and JF reshared this.
Mullvad VPN
in reply to Mullvad VPN • • •And then politicians in Brussels wanted to exempt themselves from the scanning.
And then?
And then the European Parliament, in an almost historic consensus, voted against the proposal and called Chat Control nothing but mass surveillance. As one of the members of the parliament said: “The Commission wasn’t focusing on protecting children but wanted mass surveillance.”
And then?
Mullvad VPN
in reply to Mullvad VPN • • •Quixoticgeek reshared this.
Mullvad VPN
in reply to Mullvad VPN • • •And then?
And then, in 2026 the final negotiations began, between the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Council of the EU. At the same time, the European Commission is working on a Plan B, through the initiative Going Dark/ProtectEU, where they once again try to force total surveillance (this time organized crime is the excuse) on the citizens of the EU.
And then?
youtube.com/watch?v=fPzvUW8qaW…
And then? | Mullvad VPN
Mullvad VPN (YouTube)reshared this
M Schommer 🏳️🌈 and António Manuel Dias reshared this.
Cavallo Pazzo
in reply to Mullvad VPN • • •Inmod
in reply to Cavallo Pazzo • • •Nothing was wasted today. Fortunately I've actually learned something today. Thank you.
D2
in reply to Mullvad VPN • • •(feeling like a pop-trivia idiot - even though I started at the top witg mention of Ashton Kutcher, the ‘and then?’ you kept saying didn’t <click> until this last note. 10 out of 10.)
Grim, being supportive and respectful of Kutcher’s effort against human trafficking, but ‘oh, hell no’ at the intrusion and implausibility of this proposal.
Kid Mania
in reply to Mullvad VPN • • •#doomed
Davide Alimonti
in reply to Mullvad VPN • • •No to Chat Control and all of its forms!
That's the kind of laws you get - and you constantly fight against - when you don't have real accountability as is the case in the Europan Commission (and most top EU institutions)
@mullvadnet
Maltita
in reply to Mullvad VPN • • •BibSleigh
in reply to Mullvad VPN • • •Ashton Kutcher wrote character reference letters in support of his former co-star Danny Masterson, who was convicted of rape.
That is the measure of the man running Thorn.
Si (he/him)
in reply to Mullvad VPN • • •Hälsningar från Tyskland.
Maltita
in reply to Mullvad VPN • • •betonglen
in reply to Mullvad VPN • • •thank you for sharing wow
i will utilize your 'and then?' approach
~ $ Cosipa
in reply to Mullvad VPN • • •Viss
in reply to Mullvad VPN • • •Nina Cried Power
in reply to Mullvad VPN • • •