133arc585

If you say falun gong organ harvesting didn’t happen, why don’t you (or other people in this thread that keep denying it) provide any source to prove your point instead of downvoting?

How do you expect someone to prove a negative? What sort of evidence would you like that proves that something didn't happen?

To me it reads as a use of the "cult of personality" rhetoric.

(Edit to add:) This reminded me of Roland Boer talking about how paying attention to the thought of your leaders is important (partially quoted, not exact)[^1]:

In a Western liberal context, there is an absence of any serious attention to the thought of political leaders, even when (rarely) the leader has written and published anything of substance. So, in Western contexts, very little effort is put into engaging with a communist leader's thoughts either when a Communist Party is in power. In the communist tradition, the thought of the Party's general secretary is crucial.

So to me, it reads as demonizing the fact that the leader would have actual thoughts about topics that matter. Since the Western leader's dont do it, they can try to paint Chinese leaders doing it as a bad thing.

[^1]: This is from Chapter 1 "Marxism as China's Special Thing" (Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.)

Thank you!

No, and to paint everything this way serves to delegitimize alternatives to capitalism. China is not capitalist, they are socialist. They have their own problems, because no system is perfect. But there are alternatives to capitalism, and not everything is "secretly capitalism in disguise".

It's interesting how you went from "it's not relevant at all" to "it's relevant in general but not in this case" after I gave you a reply.

If you have found a new security or privacy flaw, I would love to hear about it. But pushing your irrelevant opinions on others who are not interested, is unpleasant for us, and a waste of time for you.

My opinions are not irrelevant, as I laid out in my previous comment that you just agreed with. Others are obviously interested, and it's not "unpleasant" for them, as people responded and upvoted (and no downvotes)--indicating it's relevant. It's not a waste of time for me, because not only did it take me negligible time to type literally three sentences (actually, I copy-and-pasted the comment from one I made earlier, I didn't even write it fresh here), but it has value to others and as such is not a waste of time for me.

So whether he agrees with you that guys can become girls or vice versa, or whether he believes the same narrative that you do regarding corona is simply irrelevant.

The strawman construction was a nice little touch. Completely ignoring the part where I laid out that my personal stance and agreement or disagreement with the CEO is irrelevant, you act as if I personally disagree with the CEO and then use that to dismiss me.

You obviously have an agenda. So be it. But this conversation is truly a waste of time: you were obviously wrong and as soon as that was pointed out you shift goalposts.

I see, thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure about the specifics of how they produce their product from the upstream source.

If you think the two are unrelated you're oblivious to the considerations that must be taken into account when discussing potential privacy concerns in software. It's not ad hominem to acknowledge that the personal convictions and values of the CEO (and indeed other employees) can potentially decrease the sense of privacy of a product.

If the CEO is so adamant in his anti-X stance that he decides it's acceptable to censor access to materials about X, or perhaps worse that he decides to expose anyone using his software that discusses or supports X, would not consider those valid concerns?

Companies are made of people, and software is made by people. Since people are not neutral, companies and software are also not neutral. The stances of a company or software on privacy, freedoms, etc are all influenced by the stances on those exact issues by the constituent people of the company and developers of the software.

Consider Elon Musk and Twitter. Given Elon's personal beliefs and how adamant he is to enact and enforce those beliefs, do you consider him a neutral influence on the privacy of Twitter as a product? There is no way to see him as a neutral influence; he has direct influence by his ideological stance on the software. As such, if you have enough distrust in him or his ideological stance, that can transfer to distrust in Twitter as software.

In fact, it's not even about whether I support the CEO or whether I think his stance is "right" or "wrong" as you imply. It's entirely about how the CEO sees his beliefs in relation to the company and product he's overseeing. I could entirely agree with the CEO and still consider their influence to be a detriment to the product if he puts his ideology ahead of pragmatism, for example.

I have tried linking to write-ups on lemmygrad (perhaps even one by you the other day), and instead I'm met with:

Stop bullshitting. I’m not going to provide links to some neonazi sources about immigration and expect you to read that either. You’re a tankie and rashist and that’s pretty evident by your various comments on those topics. That makes you an extremist and clearly irrelevant to be taken into consideration in such discussions.

Plenty of people just refuse to read a source. It's just a continuation of the "this news source is biased therefore it's wrong therefore nothing it says can be trusted therefore you're a propagandist" game that they play. You can make valid points that can be independently verified and are themselves sourced, but if it's posted on lemmygrad, or some non-Western media outlet, it automatically gets dismissed.

The number of people who honestly want to engage is seemingly very small. Most people want to shout the things they hear from their chosen news source at any unwilling victim. It's hegemony of ideas, and they'll happily use any underhanded tactic to enforce it instead of engaging honestly.

I see what you're saying. I read it as implying the browser would fake the attestation token. I don't know the answer, but if their (stated) goal is to stop bots and scrapers, I have to assume it wouldn't be so simple. After all, a lot of bots and scrapers are literally running an instance of Chrome.

Search engines like DDG should really begin maintaining their own index, and they should exclude sites that use the tech from the index.

If this gets implemented, it would ruin the ability for competitor search engines (such as DDG) to exist. If Google convinces site operators to require attestation, then suddenly automated crawlers and indexers will not function. Google could say to site operators that if they wish to run ads via Google's ad network they must require attestation; then, any third-party search indexer or crawler would be blocked from those sites. Google's ad network is used on about 98.8% of all sites which have advertising, and about 49.5% of all websites.

Isn’t someone just going to fork Chromium, take out this stuff,

Yes, upstream Chromium forks will likely try to remove this functionality, but

put in something that spoofs the DRM to the sites so that adblocking still works?

This is the part that is not possible. The browser is not doing the attestation; it's a third party who serves as Attestor. All the browser does is makes the request to the attestor, and passes the attestor's results to the server you're talking to. There is no way a change in the browser could thwart this if the server you're talking to expects attestation.