It's worth the weird name if you care about maintaining privacy rights.

Personal data is an enormous market in the US. Too many big players located here. It'd never happen unfortunately. We'd need to replace all of Congress with folks who actually care about rights and people instead of money. We have only a handful on the left and that's only in the house, and that's being generous. I haven't seen any attempts really on the right. So it'd be a long time until this is even remotely possible. I'd be amazed to see a senator actually care about people though. Or even a governor.

Proton has a similar feature (not sure if it's part of free or premium as I subscribed for proton ultimate so it just came with Proton Pass). It's honestly crazy how nice having TOTP right in the extension for the account's entry in the manager.

Also, I realize this is like the third time I've made a comment about Proton, so I'm probably gonna stop before folks think I'm like a shill or something.

This is a shitty response. You won't make money if you design the app poorly and can't maintain it.

This is an ignorant take. It can be correct in some cases, but oversimplifying and making assumptions like that is entirely devoid of rational thinking.

The application is a question asking if you read the statement (which is the same as the post above).

The rest of the application is the same application you had to fill out when you created the account even when it was open sign ups. The only real difference is it's not automatically accepted but manually accepted.

Block on Lemmy doesn't prevent the blocked person from seeing your posts.

Edit: which is the crux of comparing mute on Twitter to block on Lemmy/Kbin/Mastodon etc.

Even defederating doesn't stop them from seeing your posts. It just means you don't collect theirs.

I don't know about "decentralized" as centralization is a driving influence in cost of marketing. Amazon is efficient because of every step of the way is centralized, from store front to the warehousing to the shipping. Sure there are some products that don't ship by Amazon, but they're usually at a cost disadvantage unless they're unique. Plus payment processing is centralized and allows for consumer protections which wouldn't be possible with something like crypto.

Amazon could be dethroned, but it would require very specific circumstances and unlikely wouldn't be by a privacy minded entity.

Amazon is cheap because personal data subsidizes a lot. If they couldn't sell targeted sponsor ads to you, they'd make that revenue up elsewhere.

Are you suggesting since the US did that, they should institute unconstitutional laws in the US as well? Your argument is seriously that they did some bad things so let's do worse?

The US government didn't really say anything. A government funded non-profit that is supervised by an independent US agency said it. It has the same freedom of press as NPR would theoretically. Authorities in the EU is worried as well. Basically, without heroin, they think everyone will use fentanyl instead which is far worse. This is what occurred the last time there was a heroin shortage. So, ultimately, this will backfire greatly. And moreover, the ban was announced two years ago. When announced, it was believed it would actually be completed at a time that would have caused immense hardship on Afghans that were growing it, hence the claims the Taliban was turning a blind eye. Because they effectively were.

This is an extremely biased article against the US for some reason. There's a difference when drug production was essentially being done out in the open and then suddenly stopped. Satellites can easily find where the poppy fields were. You can't do this with marijuana, nor do I think you should. And on top of that, the drug problem the US has is importation or small scale manufacture. Its an entirely different problem. And again, the war on drugs was never meant to do what this article seems to imply.

I'm surprised at this article and it's conclusions. They're extremely deceptive, biased, and not entirely accurate.

I don't know. I just had a discussion where someone told me it'd unrealistic to give up YouTube for the alternatives and yadda yadda yadda. It bears reminding that not everyone is as privacy-minded and make up nowhere near a majority. Not caring what happens because you aren't using chromium is dangerous. It's still about you and it's still going to affect you.

Pretending Twitter is a bastion of free speech is laughable. Twitter is full of censorship. And it's the kind that appeals only to a certain demographic.