359

A RULE SPY'S IN THE BASE?! (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by TheCoolerMia@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

189 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I searched up "Lemmy" on the PlayStore and noticed that Reddit appears right before the last lemmy client in that search X3 do u guys know if there r any other lemmy clients worth trying? I randomly felt like trying all I could find and for now I'll stay on Jerboa and the Web UI but I use Voyager too now, mainly for DMs

Edit: I apparently wasn't clear enough but I was asking for OTHER clients that aren't on this list X3 but feel free to share why u use an app in this list if u want anyway :3

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] blujan@sopuli.xyz 19 points 9 months ago

I use it, it's great. No ads since I paid for it. Of course it collects and shares data, by definition as it's a client to third parties platforms.

[-] nublug@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 9 months ago

many other lemmy clients don't collect and share data like boost does, bud.

[-] CubitOom@infosec.pub 16 points 9 months ago

I used to use boost for reddit so I was excited it was coming for Lemmy until I saw all the anti privacy aspects of it.

By the time it and sync finally launched. There were so many great foss apps for Lemmy that it made no sense to use one that tracked me.

[-] bus_factor@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

The tracking disclaimer is the standard message you get when an app uses Google ads. Pay for it and there are no ads, and by extension no tracking.

[-] eskimofry@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

Then you don't understand the fediverse my friend. These "clients" are monetizing something that's free.

[-] blujan@sopuli.xyz 17 points 9 months ago

Nah it's fine for people to make money off of their work, i even support sopuli.xyz continuity

[-] eskimofry@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

No man I get the point of paid apps. I don't think it should collect and sell data. That's the poison pill with this whole deal.

[-] criitz@reddthat.com 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It's my understanding that Boost don't serve ads, and doesn't track data, if you pay for it.

[-] blujan@sopuli.xyz 1 points 9 months ago

The point is it doesn't, it serves ads if you don't pay. It doesn't sell data, just uses google adsense to serve ads.

The other point where it collects and shares data with third parties is when connecting to third party servers (lemmy). That's it...

[-] eskimofry@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

Google adsense collects data.

[-] blujan@sopuli.xyz 2 points 9 months ago

I think you're missing the point intentionally

[-] queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 9 months ago

Free software != free of charge.

Nothing about free software says you need to give it away for no cost, nor that anyone can't do it. You can charge $100 for a simple calculator program that is under the GPL for its code. Nothing is there to prevent you from assembling the code and making it yourself, or from the buyer from copying and sharing the program. It's just way way easier to show off the program for free as in price and freedom for most programmers.

It's why the people who made Debian/Slackware/Ubuntu discs could charge money for an otherwise free product. Because the programmers openly allow this.

And programming is itself labor, just a lot of free software devs don't worry too much about getting paid for it.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

Except for one special situation, the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a copy of free software. You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the marketplace, so don't complain to us if nobody wants to pay a billion dollars for a copy.

The one exception is in the case where binaries are distributed without the corresponding complete source code. Those who do this are required by the GNU GPL to provide source code on subsequent request. Without a limit on the fee for the source code, they would be able set a fee too large for anyone to pay—such as a billion dollars—and thus pretend to release source code while in truth concealing it. So in this case we have to limit the fee for source in order to ensure the user's freedom. In ordinary situations, however, there is no such justification for limiting distribution fees, so we do not limit them.

Sometimes companies whose activities cross the line stated in the GNU GPL plead for permission, saying that they “won't charge money for the GNU software” or such like. That won't get them anywhere with us. Free software is about freedom, and enforcing the GPL is defending freedom. When we defend users' freedom, we are not distracted by side issues such as how much of a distribution fee is charged. Freedom is the issue, the whole issue, and the only issue.

[-] eskimofry@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

The point I was trying to make (and I should have made properly) is that paid software has a free tier supported by ads. It being paid is just a trigger that makes me think "are they injecting google's code in their product". And if they are then your data IS being collected without your consent or knowledge by Google. (Same goes for any other "ad" provider). Who knows what the google API call takes?

[-] KoalaUnknown@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

by definition as it's a client to third parties platforms

It doesn’t have to collect data at all. Voyager and many other clients do not.

[-] blujan@sopuli.xyz 1 points 8 months ago

Oh yeah, the notice on the app store is for the ads, which gets deactivated once you pay for the app. But other than that using a service of a third party means sending information to that service even if not called that by an app store.

[-] eya@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 9 months ago

I paid for it

the fact you pay for something that is utilizing FOSS software is crazy. its not like they are even hosting their own instance. they're just profiting off of open source devs.

[-] Kahizzle@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

They're paying for the use of the Boost app that the developer themselves created though? If they were charging for a Lemmy server I'd understand the point but they're paying for a client that they don't have to pay for. If it brings more people over to Lemmy then we all benefit really.

I also paid for Boost because the UI beat out all the other clients that I tried, replacing Connect which was my favourite at the time. It felt the most like Relay that I used to use on Reddit.