thoughts3rased

joined 1 year ago
[–] thoughts3rased@sopuli.xyz 2 points 9 months ago

Oh my god you've literally just recommended me a dream app. PlexAmp has so many annoying usability issues and symfonium seems to have solved all of them, I can't thank you enough.

[–] thoughts3rased@sopuli.xyz 10 points 9 months ago

It's not a big truck you just dump something on

[–] thoughts3rased@sopuli.xyz 3 points 9 months ago

Some people are about to mysteriously disappear

[–] thoughts3rased@sopuli.xyz 3 points 9 months ago

Google has been begging Apple to implement RCS for well over a year now. They wouldn't need to pull a beeper on Google since Google actively wants to help Apple implement their standard.

[–] thoughts3rased@sopuli.xyz 5 points 9 months ago

I'd agree if the ban extended to news articles online.

It doesn't.

[–] thoughts3rased@sopuli.xyz 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

They don't give you root access out of the box because the vast majority of users don't want or care about it, whilst being a pretty wide open door for bad actors. As far as I know, pixels are the easiest android phone to flash stuff too. I've only heard of Samsung blowing e-fuses upon flashing custom ROMs.

[–] thoughts3rased@sopuli.xyz 2 points 9 months ago

Not much really. Plex hasn't presented this as a normal subscription based streaming service and more of a digital storefront akin to Google Play Movies & TV. The way I've always seen it is that Plex Pass was more like a software license since it granted all the features of the Plex software library. Maybe Pass users will get a discount or something.

[–] thoughts3rased@sopuli.xyz 1 points 9 months ago

It is a genuine concern though. Certain Chinese laws do state that if the government wants, companies like tencent must hand over user data, including the data of foreign users outside their jurisdiction. Riot is owned by Tencent, with a CEO that is a card-carrying supporter of the CCP.

Personally, while I think the developers at Riot didn't intend for it to be a data-collection tool, the level of access it has could certainly be used as such if they wanted.

[–] thoughts3rased@sopuli.xyz 10 points 9 months ago

They did implement this from my knowledge. I think SomeOrdinaryGamers made a video where he showcases hardening a VM to beat the detection.

[–] thoughts3rased@sopuli.xyz 69 points 9 months ago (10 children)

Hot take: If I get the actual MP4/MKV/whatever, I don't actually care about this and think it might be a good thing, hell, I might actually purchase a couple movies and TV shows through it.

If it's just the same "license" that everywhere else gets you, then I ain't buying shit.

[–] thoughts3rased@sopuli.xyz 1 points 9 months ago

How else is the platform owner to prove that the account is linked to an actual person without defeating the check being trivial? They can't without something being tied to you. An email address may have been a good one to use back when AOL gave out addresses as part of their subscription service, but the availability of free email has destroyed this possibility. Out of the many things that could be asked for you to provide, a phone number is the least nefarious.

You reserve the right to not give your phone number to Discord. You do not need to give Discord your number in order for you to be able to use it. Likewise, the server owner reserves the right to ask Discord to only allow accounts that have been verified to not be burner accounts. Email verification does not do this, and the time limits on membership only go as far as slowing down accounts used in bad faith in a server, whether that be scams, trolling or otherwise.

Like many things in life, it's a trade-off. You value your right to privacy more than being granted access to this particular server. The server owner values the reduced ability of trolls and bad actors over the loss of membership from users like you. Unfortunately you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

The only alternative I can think of is just buying a pre-paid number and a cheap second hand phone and using that only to verify with services. It's good for 2FA too as it makes you immune to SIM swap attacks.

[–] thoughts3rased@sopuli.xyz 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

In that case, is a YouTuber liable for the GDPR failings of Google? Of course they aren't. It's the same here.

Is McDonald's liable for the GDPR failings of X? They have an account with their name and brand on it. They even pay X for a golden checkmark.

Is Taylor Swift or UGM liable for the GDPR failings of Spotify?

Are individual eBay sellers liable for the GDPR failings of eBay.

I could go on, but you don't quite seem to realise what the implications of what you're saying are if they are true. You're basically making every user liable for any GDPR on any service that collects any data. This isn't the case, or businesses wouldn't use these services.

view more: next ›