Probably not surprising to anyone, but not entirely uninteresting.

Yeah. I mean, the whole free speech thing is cool and all, but this seems like it should be seen as a direct threat.

I think that this is a very two dimensional way to look at the issue. Sure, big social media companies don’t want to be responsible for what happens on their plattforms, but that doesn’t and shouldn’t mean that it is sensible to compromise encryption like this. Also, it’s not like the already existing unencrypted, public parts of big social media platforms tend to be well moderated.

The argument that I often hear brought up is that this new surveillance capability would only be used when there is a court order, but even assuming that those are always fair and valid, and the police never circumvent due process, it being a possibility would inherently necessitate breaking end to end encryption, making communication less secure.

I don’t think that the government should be allowed to secretly listen in on communication in this way, but even if one thinks they should be allowed to, breaking secure communication for everyone doesn’t seem like a price that is justified.

Yeah, I thought the article was fine, though. Writer is more tech focused, editor seems more business focused, and the editor is usually responsible for the headline.

Haven’t read into this too much, but I think the affected person that made this get attention was a solo dev that was prototyping a solution for one of his customers.

And the reason he raised a stink was because he had a huge bill, as the name he chose for his bucket was by chance the same an open source project used as a sample bucket name, so whenever someone deployed it without first customising the config, it was pinging his bucket and getting a 403.

Edit: Here’s his original medium post / Archive

As long as there is a shortage of their main product, it’ll probably keep going up. Their main competition also still seems to have difficulties catching up for gpu compute. Not saying that that can’t change, but it doesn’t look like it yet.

Also, that’s a bad graph.

Because most Web traffic has become more and more concentrated on a few large platforms over the last, like, two decades.

I don’t think there’s a one size fits all solution. You could advertise. You could also promote some of your photos on other social media, and hope that people check out the linked site. If the content and the UX is good, some of those people will probably stay.

Generally, times are hard for independent sites, though.

Thanks for clarifying. I was mostly trying to apply that scenario to a likely real world one, but there’s definitely cases in which it could be two factor.

Hmh, I guess, though I feel this is a bit more complicated. What if you can look up the username in the registration mail sent to the inbox? Or it’s a site that uses email addresses as usernames? Is it knowing if said knowledge is inferrable from the thing you have?

Bitwarden inserts them automatically, and if I ever have to do it manually for some reason, it just doubles the fun. Hasn’t happened to me yet, though.

I have relatively long Passwords, because why not, and had problems with pages restricting the number of characters you can enter in the login window, but not the registration window. Or restricting password length and cutting your password off, but not telling you about it, so you gotta figure out that they set the first 30 characters of the saved password as your password.

Always fun to deal with. I could make it a lot easier for me by just using shorter passwords, but I think deep down I’m a masochist.

But you only need one factor, access to your inbox?

Comments are for Suckers.

Hmh, not my cup of tea, but more variety is good, I think. Though hosting a popular instance might get pretty expensive.