Anonymity is part of privacy.

Specifically, anonymity is confidentiality of identity. Confidentiality is part of privacy, which is a broad concept. So when a tool or mechanism works against anonymity, it works against privacy. It may not work against a privacy aspect that you care about, but it’s privacy nonetheless.

You’re referring to anonymity, not privacy.

Anonymity is part of privacy; not a dichotomy.

Sign-up still requires a phone number… -.-"

Thanks for the warning – that was my first question. It is my top reason (among many other reasons) for avoiding Signal.

Checkout Matrix/Element or Session,

All 3 of the sites you linked are Cloudflare sites (thus antithetical to privacy). Yes, I know you can use some of that tech without touching CF, but when they run CF websites it reveals hypocrisy & not understanding the goals of their audience.

I can’t watch videos but I will say that my biggest problem with the iME is not the security issue, but the anti-consumer aspect. Intel decided non-corporate consumers (who do not want or benefit from iME) can be disregarded marginalized. So disabling iME is insufficient and misses the problem.

The answer is to boycott iME CPUs. I never bought an intel CPU after 2008. I write this comment from a 16 year old PC just fine. I have pulled some more recent hardware out of dumpsters, ensuring I do not support anti-consumer products.

iME can be “disabled” if you go along with all the hand-waving. The nuts and bolts of it is that the ME /must/ execute when powering on the CPU, but then there is a moment in the boot sequence in which it can be disabled. For some people, that’s good enough.

#YaCy is an open source crawler that you can run and feed Searx with. I recall some searx instances that run their own YaCy. YaCy can also share indexes with other YaCy instances.

indeed. I cannot reach this link from tor:

https://help.kagi.com/kagi/search-details/search-sources.html

#DuckDuckGo makes the same claim as well. IMO it’s a great marketing tactic to say “we have our own crawler” to imply to people they will get some unique results-- but I’m not convinced that supplemental crawlers are significant. They are all too happy to rely on the crutch of the search engines they source from.

Mozilla is not in danger so long as they continue to serve Google. You cut 83% of Mozilla’s revenue and I guarantee you there will be problems.

The reason why firefox and chrome work so well, is that they literally have been in development for over a decade.

How can you say they work well?

Basic functionality is still crippled. For example, when images are disabled in Chrome, animated GIFs are still downloaded and played. Chrome does not even have the option to disable animations. When both images & animations are disabled in Firefox, animated GIFs are also still downloaded (wasting the credit of those on fixed bandwidth plans and thus defeating the purpose for those who would use the feature)… but they are simply not played automatically. Great.

These are not just bugs… these are the sort of blunt stark defects that do not reflect the quality of mature projects. I mean shit, still today cannot disable animations in Chrome despite bug report 14 years ago. WTF. That is not “working well” when it can’t do something that basic.

so it’s an obvious choice for academia to teach.

I can’t agree. You could perhaps say Matlab is the default/non-critically-analyzed choice for academia. GNU Octave uses the same language as Matlab. A student who masters GNU Octave will be able to use Matlab just fine.

IIRC, Matlab’s significant difference is Simulink. So if a class actually intends to cover Simulink then it’d perhaps be fair enough for just that class to use Matlab. But even that’s not ideal. Ideal would be the school paying students to add what’s needed in GNU Octave.

Perhaps also noteworthy that Gitea is a fork from Gogs. And AFAIK, gogs is the original work.

Disroot uses Forgejo, according to the forge catalog, if anyone wants to try it out.

It doesn’t matter what that expenditure amounts to. Whatever that figure is, Microsoft recovers it. I guarantee you it’s profitable for Microsoft in the end.

Forking doesn’t imply control.

It does. That’s the reason for forking. You get control. If you don’t, then you’ve done something wrong.

A forked version of chromium would still want to keep up to date with the upstream project.

That’s the choice of the fork owners, because they get control. They can take or leave upstream changes at will.

You seem to view this public option with an unrealistic view of how software development works. Especially in the public sector.

I’ve worked on software projects in both the private sector and public sector.

Somebody comes in with a requirement to do something in the fastest and cheapest way possible.

This reflects an unrealistic view of how public sector software development works. What you describe is how the private sector works. You cannot superimpose your understanding of the private sector on the public sector and assume it works that way.

The engineers go off and fork chromium and simply reskin it because that meets the brief.

It depends on the budget. Public budgets can be tight and they can be loose. It’s a spend-it-or-lose-it scenario. If you do not spend every dime of your annual budget, you get a smaller budget next year. So there’s a unique incentive to spend in the public sector. If (and only if) the budget is tight, indeed they would fork something (not necessarily Chrome).

And that’s merely the start of the project. In software development, we don’t just build something and walk away from it. Especially for government projects - the software is continually under maintenance. So after the fork (if that’s what the budget is limited to) the project does the necessary to meet new requirements as they emerge.

The public sector isn’t going to be interested in trying to make the optimal browser if they are forced to create one. They are going to be interested in meeting the brief in the fastest and easiest way possible.

That’s not how the public sector works. It’s a world of difference between the private sector. What you’re describing is the private sector. Unlike the private sector, public sector workers are not blocked from “gold plating”. Public sector workers have the freedom to produce polished work. Their wages tends to be lower than what they would fetch in the private sector, but what they gain is intellectual freedom and creative license. This is why NASA workers love their work environment and employee retention is high despite relatively low wages.

In that case it would depend on whether “reskinning” implies forking. If they fork and exercise control over the code thereafter, that’s fair enough. Otherwise, no… it’d be insufficient to secure sovereignty from Google if the code continues to simply automatically mirror Google’s.

That was quite vague and still hard to interpret the trade you mention. But I’ll say generally security benefits from:

1. a good number of careful eyes on the code
2. bug bounty programs
3. audits
4. red teams

Closed source has the false sense of security pitfall, which stems from the mentality that code secrecy is a protection of some kind. That pitfall is avoidable simply by not using it as a crutch for lacking security. Open source automatically avoids that pitfall. Bug bounties (2) help get motivated eyes (1) on the code (eyes motivated by generous legit rewards, as opposed to the reward of a zero day in the wrong hands). From there, I see no advantage to closed-source here.

It’s not the governments responsibility to ensure that a law suit is profitable.

Nonsense. Of course we expect to get a court remedy when a business or person scams or cheats another. Otherwise why even have civil courts? It’s a foolish idea to think the government has no responsibility in providing a functional justice system. Where do you think the responsibility for justice in disputes lies, if not the government? You have don’t even have leverage to negotiate an out of court settlement unless the threat of losing your ass in court is real. Even if you live in a small indigenous tribal community, there’s a tribal leader serving as the “government” to arbitrate disputes.

It’s noteworthy that you used the term “profitable”. When I wrote the example I had recovery of actual damages in mind. But that’s fine, we can run with that too. When a lawsuit generates profit, that means we’re dealing with tort or statutory damages. Since it would be small claims, we can nix tort. Statutory damages refer to situations where the law sets out a penalty for violators whereby victims need not show actual damages. E.g. telemarketers breaking the TCPA, or credit bureaus breaking the FCRA. In these cases, the people elected Congress to write law to protect consumers, and as representatives of the people Congress opted to codify statutory penalties that are directly actionable by victims. Of course the gov has a responsibility to support their own law and make violations thereof actionable. This is what they were elected to do.

And a new browser isn’t going to do what you think it is. Any attempt by a government to create a browser is just going to use Blink anyways.

You’ve misunderstood my position. This is also non-sequitur logic. Blink is not a browser, so if you build a new browser which makes use of Blink, it’s still a new browser. (Hence the non-sequitur). From there, whether Blink is sufficiently brand-agnostic to effectively offer sovereignty from tech giants is a separate question. If yes, then Blink inside of a Google-free creation is fit for purpose. If not (due to Google steering things even from the rendering engine), then Blink would defeat the purpose and thus it would be unfit for purpose.

Yes, these things are inconvenient. Meaning they are achievable items but at some personal cost and effort. They are not insurmountable.

You’re not getting it. It’s not achievable.

Pre-web:

• cost of posting a letter to the secretary of state: 55¢
• filing a lawsuit for $200: $90
• return: $289.45 ← achievable because this is a positive number

Post-web:

• cost of travel to Washington DC: $400
• filing a lawsuit for $200: $90
• return: -$110 ← unachievable because this is a negative number

Do you understand the math? Pre-web, it was possible to sue a corporation for $200 and recover $199.45 of that. Post-web, that is insurmountable. If you try, you lose even if you win the judgement. Post-web, the only way to win that case is to use the web. You are therefore forced to use the web in the US.

And a new browser isn’t going to change anything.

Of course it does. A public option can give sovereignty from US tech giants. Otherwise you have the injustice of a government forcing people not only to use technology but to subject themselves and the people to the influence of surveillance capitalists.

Pre-web, postal correspondence was treated. Now it’s not. Convenience and difficulty are inversely proportional measures of the same thing. When you take away one out of two options, the other option is not a convenience. It’s a requirement.

The idea that you think people nationwide traveling to DC to get a business record is mere inconvenience is absurd. Are you drunk? You’re making a lot of bizarre assumptions, starting with assuming the travel is even possible for everyone nationwide who needs the service. If someone needs to sue a company for $200 and travel costs to DC to get the registered agent of the company is $400, you’ve effectively killed their access public service by nixing correspondence.

Your perverse understanding of convenience is ultimately just a language game that changes the language but not the problem. So let’s say traveling from California to DC to get an address is a mere “inconvenience” and using the web is “convenient”. That so-called “convenience” is essential in countless scenarios. And because what you refer to as “inconvenient” is actually not plausible in a scenario, the need for convenience in your language becomes essential.