ᗪᗩᗰᑎ

the rich always get a fast pass

they think because he inherited a recovering economy, that he himself had some major part in it.

Actually yes. They want to privatize it so that they can make money on it. Failure is the goal.

Actually yes. They want to privatize it so that they can make money on it further exploit the working class. Failure is the goal.

Although you’re right, I like to call out what it will do to everyone so it’s more explicit and will hopefully click in people’s minds.

Trump’s is Putin’s puppet. He’s set to destroy whatever he can.

Happens more than we’d like to believe. The mans dad wasn’t actually even dead in the case linked below. The policy will continue to make these mistakes until the consequences of their failures comes directly out of their pay.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-06-01/fontana-police-coerced-false-murder-confession-with-lies

I bought a 20TB external hard drive a year ago for 0.015 cents per GB. This was after taxes, so it was technically cheaper.

$301.69/20,000 = 0.0150

nor any evidence of them selling or allowing anyone access to their servers and recent headline news backs this up

The entire point is that you shouldn’t have to put your trust that a third party (Telegram or whoever takes over in the future) will not sell/allow access to your already accessible data.

There’s no evidence that MTProto has ever been cracked, nor any evidence of them selling or allowing anyone access to their servers and recent headline news backs this up

Just because it’s not happening now does not mean it cannot happen in the future. If/when they do get compromised/sold, they will already have your data; it’s completely out of your control.

Google, on the other hand, routinely allow “agencies” access to their servers, often without a warrant

Exactly my point. Google are using the exact same “security” as Telegram. Your data is already compromised. Side note - supposedly RCS chats between Android is E2EE although I wouldn’t trust it as, like Telegram, you’re mixing high/low security context, which is bad OPSEC.

WhatsApp - who you cite as a good example of E2E encryption - stores chat backups on GDrive unencrypted by default

1. Security is about layers. E2EE is better than not having E2EE. Same as transport layer encryption is better than none. Would you prefer anyone on the wire can read your messages just because it’s not perfect in every single use case? No, and for that same reason, E2EE is better.
2. Backups can be made E2EE [1]. Is this perfect? No. But its significantly better than Telegram.
3. I’m only pointing out that Whatsapp is better for privacy than Telegram - I still don’t personally use or recommend it.

… can you be sure the same is true for the people on the other end of your chats?

Valid concern, but this threat exists on almost every single platform. Who’s to stop anyone from taking screenshots of all your messages and not storing them securely?

[1] https://www.tomsguide.com/news/whatsapp-encrypted-backups

Signal is completely open source and auditable by anyone: https://github.com/signalapp

if you were to create your own clone, it would not interoperate with the real one.

The FBI can’t just force them to add malicious code. A bad actor could try to contribute bad code, but Signal’s devs would likely catch it.

Lacking end-to-end encryption does not mean it lacks any encryption at all, and that point seems to escape most people.

Not using end-to-end encryption is the equivalent of using best practice developed nearly 30 years ago [1] and saying “this is good enough”. E2EE as a default has been taking off for about 10 years now [2], that Telegram is going into 2025 and still doesn’t have this basic feature tells me they’re not serious about security.

To take it to its logical conclusion you can argue that Signal is also “unencrypted” because it needs to be eventually in order for you to read a message. Ridiculous? Absolutely, but so is the oft-made opine that Telegram is unencrypted.

Ridiculous? Yes, you’re missing the entire point of end-to-end encryption, which you immediately discredit any security Telegram wants to claim:

The difference is that Telegram stores a copy of your chats that they themselves can decrypt for operational reasons.

Telegram (and anyone who may have access to their infrastructure, via hack or purchase) has complete access to view your messages. This is what E2EE prevents. With Telegram, someone could have access to all your private messages and you would never know. With E2EE someone would need to compromise your personal device(s). One gives you zero options to protect yourself against the invasion of your privacy, the other lets you take steps to protect yourself.

the other hand, if you fill your Telegram hosted chats with a whole load of benign crap that nobody could possibly care about and actually use the “secret chat bullshit” for your spicier chats then you have plausible deniability baked right in.

The problem here is that you should not be mixing secure contexts with insecure ones, basic OPSEC. Signal completely mitigates this by making everything private by default. The end user does not need to “switch context” to be secure.

[1] Developed by Netscape, SSL was released in 1995 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Layer_Security#SSL_1.0,_2.0,_and_3.0

[2] Whatsapp gets E2EE in 2014, Signal (then known as TextSecure, was already using E2EE) - https://www.wired.com/2014/11/whatsapp-encrypted-messaging/

Telegram, for all their security claims, is basically not actually encrypted at all.

Apex Legends. Its a difficult game to master, but every once in a while I get “in the zone” and pull moves/plays that impress myself. It’s not often, but feels nice when it happens. I still enjoy it even though I “suck” most of the time. I basically play it as a survival game >90% of the time.

Go fuck yourself with this pacifist attitude

there you go again, assuming you know anything about who i am, who i support, and what actions i’ve taken/not taken.

my critique of your attitude is that you blame others in a “matter of fact” way without knowing anything about them. childish, immature, and edgy are appropriate descriptions for your reactions. i’m no longer responding after this as clearly you are quick to anger and anger doesn’t lead to rational thought. if you’re not already seeing a therapist, i strongly suggest it. lashing out and projecting doesn’t hurt anyone but yourself.

I’ll be honest, not a lot of pros to using Firefox if you don’t care about using the best adblocker (uBlock origin). That said, if you haven’t tried it recently, you should give it a shot. I would recommend installing uBlock Origin and Dark Reader (if you like your pages dark) for the best experience.

It’s not as fast as Chrome (not noticeable on newer devices) but I personally disagree with giving Google so much power over the web, so I’m ideologically opposed to using anything based on Chromium or not open source, so my options are limited.

much appreciated, thanks!

anything specific that firefox lacks that is keeping you on chrome?

The president has the power to order the Department of education to delete the debt…

any sources to back this up? stating it as fact does not make it one.

Because all you do is complain online like all the other democrats.

Oh, you know me personally?

We lost to an orange rapist criminal because losers like you don’t protest with guns

Spoken like a true basement dwelling loser. Go back to 4chan, edgelord

100% contradicting yourself, my guy.

Uhh. Billions of ways?

Okay, I’m exaggerating for effect. That said, I’m not saying it isn’t gruesome. I’m saying the “sacrifice” pales in comparison to everyday horrors that happen to real people who aren’t promised eternal bliss for the loss of a single weekend. Just look at what the cartels post online, much worse options.