She's a racist, classist noeliberal and a fucking cop (or close enough).

Her political career has been chock-full of attacking public institutions like schools, protecting white-collar crime which destroyed countless lives, protecting child molesters in the church, implementing policy against the poor, and protecting prison slavery. I'm not sure where exactly the confusion lies.

Also remember this is useless without complementary security measures:

1. Encrypt the storage on any device where these are installed (including your desktop/laptop drives if you install e.g. the desktop version of Signal).
2. Lock your devices with pin or password, and store that pin/password only in your head (there's no such thing as telepathy at this point in time so they can't physically force it out of you, unlike biometric data like your fingerprints).

If you are relying on "Legally they're not allowed to..." instead of, "they simply can't, even if they try," then you're not doing it right.

Google does not really offer a space where people can come together to create communities or discussion threads. However, with the introduction of Perspectives, it may do so later.

So—despite the dumbass title (article's fault, not OP's)—explicitly not an alternative to Reddit, where literally the whole point is to create communities and discussion threads.

Dems have once again squandered full control and couldn’t cobble together any protections from a clear and present danger in radicalized right political zealots.

The mistake lies in thinking that they want to. One can believe they are bumbling fools who trip over their own feet for only so many generations before it becomes apparent that the agenda they somehow fail to foil over and over again is actually one that they wholeheartedly embrace themselves, too.

Based on my experience in many privacy roles covering US, EU, UK and other countries, the sale of a company will likely be covered in Google's privacy notice and is not considered a sale of personal data considering customer's personal data will immediately be covered by the purchasing company's privacy notice.

Funny, because if I decided to go into business with Google by renting a service from them, that honestly shouldn't mean that I automatically decided to go into business with some other corporation at Google's whim.

But hey, capitalism really cares about personal autonomy. It's not like it just exploits our labor and treats us like commodities or anything. /s

I appreciate that the only JS scripts Beehaw seems to load are from beehaw.org. Usually NoScript shows like two full pages of domains, and (at least—you know, the obvious ones like xyzads4you.com) half of them are for ads and "analytics".

Out of 33 of these crisis center websites they looked at:

In follow-up tests, four organizations appeared to have completely removed the code. The majority of the centers we contacted did not respond to requests for comment.

Ignorance may have been an excuse prior to this investigation, but it's not an excuse now.

It's hilarious for Meta to invite some person who happens to run a server to an "off the record" conversation with "confidential details that should not be shared with others" anyway. LOL.

The only "confidential" information that's likely to be involved in such an exchange would be some kind of bribe for the person to shut down or assimilate their infrastructure with Meta's. It's not like they're going to reveal Meta's trade secrets to someone they believe to essentially be a competitor or anything.

Don't be paternalistic. Homeless people know how to spend money just like anyone else, and will spend it on the best thing for themselves because they are the only people who can validly make decisions regarding their own lives. If they need to self-medicate ("spend it on drugs"), who exactly are you to decide that is an invalid decision? And most likely they will spend it on things like food and clothing anyway.

Choose to help by giving someone some money or don't. It's a small individual action that may help someone else a bit. That's all. If you care to make larger systemic change, you should really move on to organizing with homeless folks anyway; building networks of solidarity and helping to defend communities against the violence of the state and other bad actors. So maybe give someone a $20 but then sit down and have a conversation with them, and don't think the one act of charity alleviates your social obligation to act with solidarity and help change society.

EDIT: PS - Your feelings might be "normal", but that is only because they reflect the typical liberal propaganda perpetuated in society: that homeless people are somehow less human and less capable than everyone else and deserve their situation, rather than that they are simply victims of the capitalist economy that liberalism itself serves to uphold. These feelings shouldn't be normal. So help work on them in yourself and in others. We all have things to learn and growth to do. Undo the conditioning this shit system has pushed at us since birth. Kill the cop in your own head. Then we can move on to the other ones.

Well, you’re an actor. Just put on the f–king clothes.

I bet they say this to vets who don't want to play military roles that might trigger their PTSD and shit too, right? ...right? Like, is it that difficult to understand that people have different experiences, and that it's completely reasonable for actors to avoid roles that relate to their past and present trauma? (No, of course it's not that difficult to get: it's just the transphobia.)

We’d probably be willing to view ads if the experience wasn’t literally jarring.

Not me, sorry. Fuck ads. I've been ad-free for like a decade, and I'm not interested in regressing.

Hmm. Hate to be a downer, but that sounds like there needs to be a way for the service itself to block (ban) users and material, not for users to be able to block other users. So I wouldn't be too optimistic about Apple's response....