Skip Navigation

Posts
23
Comments
2799
Joined
9 mo. ago

  • I could ask you the same question.

  • I don't understand. The proposed legislation would force ID verification for Mullvad users. You're still a Mullvad user, regardless of whether you connect through your VPS.

  • I've always wondered why we aren't buying/hacking info about politicians that support anti-privacy legislation from these databrokers and leaking it to the public. If I had the knowledge that's what I'd be doing. I can't think of anything that would be more effective.

  • People are using VPNs to circumvent identity verification, so this solves nothing.

  • Then you've not solved anything because that IP is still unique to you.

  • If you want to look more into that, there's a company called Holepunch that's exploring a lot of that technology. But as a heads up they are funded by a crypto company.

  • Why not just connect directly?

  • Sure but, connected to where?

  • Not necessarily. I would argue the primary intent of commercial VPNs is to obscure web traffic data from your ISP.

  • That's be nice, but let's be realistic, everyone is signed in, and no one will even notice. This is probably to fight scraping.

  • WV still working for me?

    Yet another locked down platform trying to fight the infinite network of bots that is AI scrapers.

  • not every person would want the law bent or ignored for their family

    Probably 99% of people would. Even Joe Biden abused his power to pardon his son. The ones who wouldn't are exceptional.

  • I would not be surprised, I've investigated this pretty thoroughly. I've blocked all Meta domains from my network and devices. I dont give any of those stores my phone # or real name, and I use a virtual credit card that doesn't have my name or real address. All items are shipped to a PO box.

  • King Charles says ‘law must take its course’

    Damn, I don't know this guy but it must take a lot to say that about your own family.

  • He's lying.

  • They might have my name and number. They don't have anything to connect that information to, because I don't give it.

  • A lot of people reported that they did. I don't know why. Nothing in their statement said that. They did say they were going to add some "advanced workflows" but didn't elaborate anymore than that. It says it right in the link in OP:

    Update: Google has not “backed down” from developer verification: Contrary to a vague mention of a possible “advanced flow” that may eventually allow “experienced users to accept the risks of installing software that isn’t verified”, Google’s description of the program continues to state plainly that: "Starting in September 2026, Android will require all apps to be registered by verified developers in order to be installed on certified Android devices". Until such time that they have shown evidence that it will be possible to bypass the verification process without undue friction, we must believe what is stated on their official page: that all apps from non-registered developers will be blocked once their lock-down goes into effect.

  • The only way to outlaw Meta’s dangerous and egregious behavior is to pass legislation

    Or we could just exercise existing legislation? Like perjury?

  • I'm sure that makes it real useful to have, then, since no one knows it to call you.

    I meant I don't give it to companies, because I know that's why they want it.

    how am I supposed to read this, then?

    How about exactly how it's fucking written? Without making shit up? Do you think you can do that? Telling you how to prevent something is not the same thing as blaming you for it.