It’s funny because I watch zero NSFW content on Reddit or Lemmy.

Wouldn’t be surprised if it also did automatic scans for CSAM or some other BS like that. The article’s conclusion is really funny, too:

In any case, it’s nice to see Google delivering some new safety features in its Messages app. Hopefully the company publishes documentation on how Android System SafetyCore works so other messaging apps can implement their own version of Sensitive Content Warnings. Google Messages is popular, but there are certainly other messaging platforms that could benefit from this tool.

They are quite the optimitsts. Oh and yes please, put the spyware in more apps! We aren’t tracked enough!

Seems to have been a bug and they reverted the bans.

Seems you’re right. I tried a few subs when the original comment was posted and they didn’t work but now they seem to be back.

To be fair, it’s still a good thing to remember that it takes like one press of a button to kill a shitton of communities a lot of people care about.

To be fair I don’t think that many people go to Reddit for porn. With Tumblr it seemed almost exclusive. But it’s still an odd move.

Huh? Do you have a source for that?

That’s just the reality of doing business on the Internet.

That’s just not true. You can absolutely get by on the internet remaining pretty much anonymous, as it is. Very few services need (and verify) your personal data; when they do it’s basically always when it’s government-mandated, and it’s for things that have a “physical” equivalent.

i.e. creating a bank account online requires your actual ID, but so it would if you tried to do it “offline” in a physical bank (and you largely have a choice on whether or not you do it online).

Then you have stuff like online shopping and such where most people probably use their actual personal information but you don’t have to and it’s generally not checked.

This is an unprecedented change, where suddenly for access to a free service someone needs to ask for and validate some very private details. And it fucking sucks.

While Australia’s new legislation is ham-fisted and poorly thought out, the intent isn’t wrong and there’s broad consensus for it (77% approval in Australia). We need to do something about the uncontrolled exploitation, manipulation and endangerment of minors by social media services.

That’s the issue though; I agree that something needs to be done, but you need to do it more or less correctly on the first try or you’ll probably make it even worse.

Someone still needs to create that digital token from your ID, which means someone’s still using and storing your data, and potentially selling it or having it leaked.

Who would realistically buy Chrome that wouldn’t degrade the consumer experience?

Hopefully noone, so it would lead into more fragmentation in the browser space, which is a good things.

The manifest v3 changes primary give a lot of security and privacy changes that stop extensions from doing a lot of questionable things in the background on all your page you visit. But that does stop ad blockers from doing a lot of what they currently do - blocking in page elements and modifying the pages you visit.

It also killed a lot of other genuinely useful extensions.

And if security is their main concern they should have spent resources on making sure the extensions they themselves redistribute are safe, not on killing a huge chunk of extensions. Sorry but you’ll have a very hard time convincing anyone that getting rid of ad blockers wasn’t their primary motive.

But it does not block them from blocking page requests so ad blockers like ublockorigin lite can still function in a more limited capacity to block ads.

It completely changed how they do this, and made it way less effective and more limited. All completely unnecessary from a security standpoint.

…and that’s how it still works.

That sounds very illegal, yeah. You can’t advertise a price and then charge something different. It doesn’t matter that the person didn’t notice it. At that point you might not have price tags at all (which is also illegal, just FYI).

It generates code and then you can use a call to some runtime execution API to run that code, completely separate from the neural network.

On the contrary, it’s the only comparison you can make, since they are literally the only options.

…and there is no way to do that, currently.

That’s not something that’d likely scale enough to bring any meaningful sum of money.

Even then it targets a tiny, tiny minority of their even current userbase, let alone if they want to approach more “average” users.

They’re two separate(ish) issues.

But it’s still a bad idea to use national TLDs for stuff that has nothing to do with that nation.

Granted, is ICANN wasn’t just a money-grabbing machine with no forward thinking they wouldn’t give nations clearly “generally desirable” gTLDs, but since they did already that doesn’t mean they should be misused.

I had a similar issue and in my case it ended up being some AMD crap (I think an updater or something) that probably didn’t install properly or something.

IIRC I just ended up disabling the scheduled task that was running it and that was the end of it.

That would give random strangers (at least partial) control over what is indexed and how and you’d have to trust them all. I’m not sure that’s a great idea.

Firefox has a profile manager (the thing that’s also exposed to about:profiles). Run it like firefox -profilemanager and you’ll get a profile switcher.

Run firefox -profilemanager -no-remote if you want to open multiple different profiles at once (only the original one without “no-remote” will open new tabs when you click on links outside the browser). You’ll probably want to make a shortcut for different profiles though, not sure from memory what it is (but probably -profile ProfileName) and then you can easily use profiles.

The support is actually pretty decent, just kinda hidden. You don’t get a profile switcher because the browsers are completely separate, they don’t really know about each other.