Melllvar

From a national security standpoint of the government, it absolutely does matter who has the data.

Looks like compatibility hacks for various websites.

Interventions - are deeper modifications to make sites compatible. Firefox may modify certain code used on these sites to enforce compatibility. Each compatibility modification links to the bug on Bugzilla@Mozilla; click on the link to look up information about the underlying issue.

User Agent Override - change the user agent of Firefox when connections to certain sites are made.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Compatibility/UA_Override_&_Interventions_Testing

If social media companies exist to collect massive troves of personal info from users–and they do–then there is a valid national security concern over social media controlled by an adversary. This is distinct from the individual privacy concerns towards domestically-controlled social media.

Lisa needs braces!

Ublock origin, Sponsor block, and NoScript

I’m not upgrading because I don’t trust Windows 11. Not that 10 has my confidence, of course, but 11 seems worse.

The value of the DNS is that we all use the same one. You can declare independence, but you’d lose out on that value.

💩

https://www.code.gov/

Not exactly the same problem. In the same way that gun control doesn’t address the problem of hostile foreign militaries. Yes, both involve guns, but the laws and policies that address one are inapplicable and inappropriate to the other.

The law in question addresses the problem of foreign adversaries having easy access to manipulate US public opinion. The law you suggest addresses the problem of advertisers having that access. Both are serious concerns, both need to be addressed, but they are not the same problem and the solutions are markedly different.

require every company operating within the US to show users exactly what data is collected and allow them to delete any or all of it as desired

That would be a very different kind of law from the one we’re talking about.

That’s the opposite of what the court said.

Well, no. The courts struck down Trump’s Tiktok ban because he used an executive order that overstepped his authority.

Tiktok has been a subject of national security concerns since at least 2020.

That’s a separate issue that could not be addressed with this kind of law anyway.

Can you explain why you feel that would even be necessary?

I’ve actually read the law, so no one has to tell me that it really, actually is about privacy. I know that it is.

deleted by creator

Chew responded to the latest moves in a video posted by the official TikTok account. “Make no mistake, this is a ban,” Chew said in the video. “A ban on TikTok and a ban on you and your voice.”

Narrator: it wasn’t.

deleted by creator