Debrid services are usually cheaper (as low as $2.5/month), but you're limited to public trackers with them.
shrugal
joined 1 year ago
Cause it's one big part of why the Fediverse and Lemmy exist in the first place.
We wouldn't need all this decentralization overhead if centralized sites were trustworthy and focussed on serving their users. The fact that they are not is what leads to privacy violations and enshittification, hence why people created the Fediverse and why we are here (at least most of us I presume).
pay for it with ~~advertising~~ your data
FTFY.
That part is not allowed according to the GDPR afaik, the decision about your personal data cannot be artificially linked to something else. They can absolutely show ads, but without using your data.
From what I understand the GDPR says you have to give users a real choice about the usage of their data, without any unreasonable negative repercussions. Having to pay money (at least as much as they are asking for) is such an unacceptable repercussion, no matter how FB might phrase it.
They are allowed to take money or show ads for access, but they can't couple that decision with the one about the user's data usage.
I guess it depends on whether it only applies to "large platforms" as the wording of this article suggests. Otherwise it should definitely affect every site with a similar option.
Get a Usenet provider, a download client and a few indexers, set them up, and start downloading. Maybe automate with *arr apps at some point.
Some suggestions:
- Provider: UsenetServer ($1/month trial + $50/year discount)
- Downloader: SABnzbd
- Indexers: NZBGeek, altHUB, NZBIndex, abook.link (Forum), SceneNZBs (German), Tabula Rasa (invite only), NZBCat (invite only)
Most indexers let you search for free on their website, but grabbing download links and using their API with *arr apps is limited (e.g. 10 downloads and 100 API queries per day) unless you pay for VIP access (usually about $10/year/indexer). So you can try out a few, maybe pay for one or two that give you good results, and keep using the rest within the limits of free accounts.
The video is probably factually correct, but very disingenuous with its interpretations and conclusions imo.
Of course Mozilla and Firefox have their own share of problems and bad decisions, and they are pretty well known and talked about from what I've seen, but equating it to Google and Chrome is just pure cynicism. Mozilla having to earn money somehow (1% donations!) and Google trying to maximize profits at all costs is not the same thing, even if it might look similar sometimes.
Herd mentality showing its ugly face!
Nothing about what you just wrote has anything to do with closed source software though. You could just as well say that closed source helps them predict the future or draw shinier unicorns. It doesn't!
Maybe you mean tightly coupled, stripped-down, preconfigured or vertically integrated, but you can do that just as well with open source software. No one is forcing them to make a general purpose chat app or offer the ability to choose a different server. It's just a matter of being able to see, verify and modify the code.
differentiate above the competition [...] charging for it
This is the only thing that comes close imo. But they stated specifically that they don't want to make money with the chat app itself, so it doesn't really work as a justification. They could easily offer server-side premium features or create a closed source premium-only version or extension, it's no reason to make the base app closed source.
security theatre
They don't have to do that, and they don't afaik. Matrix itself can do proper e2ee just fine, and Beeper is pretty open about the fact that bridges hosted by them have to break e2ee to translate between platforms. They'd only need theater if their closed source app actually has some bad code in it, which is kind of my point.
Expanding to selling some user metadata, or sniffing the bridges, would be an extra
Again: Their Matrix server and bridges are open source right now, and it wouldn't stop them from doing what you're describing.
Too pedantic 😉
I just can't help it. 😜
the connecting with a majority of people using the same closed source platform
The platform is open, including the part that connects to other closed source platforms. It's just Matrix and open source bridges after all. And making the client app closed souce doesn't help with any of that.
I'm sorry if I'm a bit pedantic about this, but it seems like you're describing an upside to closed source software that's just not there.
You're definitely right that people are a bit too doom-and-gloom about it, Beeper did do a lot of good over the last few years!
But I also find it a bit odd that they talk so much about the importance of open source in messaging, and then release a closed source client without at least adressing the topic. Add the fact that they've been aquired by another company on the same day, and it starts to smell like another instance of openwashing.
Idk, we'll have to see how it plays out I guess.
I think some of the arguments are quite flawed. Bitcoin itself has most of the properties it is said to have, but it lives in a world that doesn't and so some only really apply if you manage to stay inside the system. Like, your Signal chats are private as long as you don't copy-paste them to Facebook.
Regarding self-custody/decentralization and using custodial services: The problem here is not that those properties don't apply to Bitcoin, but that some people just choose to give away control over their wallets or not use Bitcoin itself for certain transactions. Can't blame that on the currency, unless you think it can't be done any other way.
Regarding privacy: I don't think any serious "Bitcoiner" advertises Bitcoin as private. The message has always been that it's "pseudonymous", that you have to take extra steps in order to make it anonymous, and that it's transparent instead of private by design.
Regarding transparency/inclusion: These paragraphs actually argue about privacy again. One is trying to spin the existing transparency into a negative, which is a valid opinion but not something "Bitcoiners" are wrong about. The other circles back to the idea of staying inside the system. Bitcoin transactions are inclusive, but ofc you can still get into trouble if you have to fear external repercussions and can't stay anonymous.