Cybersecurity professional with an interest in networking, and beginning to delve into binary exploitation and reverse engineering.
Yeah, the answer here is cancel prime and pirate whatever amazon video content you want. if you absolutely have to have prime for some reason, don’t sign in to amazon video on any of your devices and pirate the stuff you want to watch so at least your not contributing to views or their prime video ad revenue.
Edit - I see in another comment you said you unsubscribed, good on you.
I’ve replaced the pads on mine a couple times, the rubber on the thumb rest has a hole worn it it to the plastic, and the braided cable is all frayed and stuff. I’ve had the thing for the past 10 years at least. I know new ones are that cheap and that I should just get a new one at this point but the thing is just a workhorse.
It is part of the deep web, just like Discord or any sites hosted on private companies intranets. Lemmy is not, you can just hit any instance with a web browser and view stuff.
To be completely clear, dark web/net and deep web are two different things. That wiki link you used is describing dark web stuff like tor etc.
Oh damn, I’m gonna have to find that shit. I am regularly shocked at how hard CBS Saturday/Sunday Morning goes though, they will throw some savage shit on the air for the grandmas watching human interest stories about Broadway actors and whatever the fuck Mo Rocca has gotten interested in recently.
Edit - Found it on a Ukrainian dead Russian combat footage telegram. Bit rate is garbo but it looks like even ISIL is full sending the whole weeb CS gun skin thing lol. Best part is the posts of air raid sirens and distant explosions from Belgorod, with the caption “Помста за вухо таджика”.
Ah ok, I misinterpreted your post then. I thought you were insinuating that because refineries are civilian infrastructure Ukraine shouldn’t be targeting them. We’re in agreement here, don’t target actual civilians and slam as many drones as possible into refineries and any other valid targets within Russia.
The distinction is not between civilian targets and military targets, it is between “civilian objects” and “military objectives”. Targeting a civilian infrastructure such as refineries, and even civilian power stations can be considered valid military objectives if they make an effective contribution to military action or offer a definite military advantage. The refineries being hit by Ukraine definitely meet that definition.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/when-are-attacks-civilian-infrastructure-war-crimes-2022-12-16/
If you go on to any of the pro-Ukrainian telegram channels, Ukrainians are absolutely rejoicing over this. One posted a video of the fire taken by a car driving by on the highway and captioned it “З днем свинячого шашлику” lol.
that’s exactly what i’d expect a dark empath to say. sheathe your knife unless you want to get saddled with karmic debt bro. you’re limited to paying off karmic debt in transactions of no more than 3k eurohms each, and with this dark energy you’d be in karmic debt into the millions.
So which is it?
Is the US unable to hold Tiktok accountable or is it/should it be allowed to dictate the ownership of Tiktok?
I was wrong, TikTok has a US subsidiary, so accountability can been enforced. I was under the mistaken impression they didn’t, so operating on the assumption that any accountability action would be functionally unenforceable.
That’s exactly what a bot would say… 🤨
The US could, if there was the political will, hold Facebook accountable for this because Meta is an American company. The US would not be able to hold a non-American company accountable in the same way. I do not see a conflict between wanting Meta held accountable for allowing things like Cambridge Analytica to occur and not minding the US taking proactive action on TikTok.
Agreed on the Republican party bit.
If Facebook could be considered a nefarious conspiracy (or at least subservient to the powers engaging in said conspiracy), why is it unbelievable that TikTok could also be?
It is not about preventing foreign or private influence that his harmful to the citizens. It is about controling that influence.
No, it is about preventing foreign influence on citizens. The fact that some level of control (or more accurately accountability) can be exerted by the US government on companies like Meta is true but unrelated. If ByteDance was a company in the EU we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Preventing an oppressive government from exerting undue influence on another sovereign nation’s citizenry is an oppressive act itself?
Nope that’s not what i’m saying, try again.
If having a nuanced and often extremely critical opinion is being a subservient puppy, woofwoof I guess?
Imagine the uproar if China demanded that Google stopped being a US military contractor.
China is actively demanding that all Chinese companies excise American hardware and software from their technology stacks. They know that they can’t divorce a US tech company headquartered in the US from the US intelligence agencies, so it is the next best option. This is colloquially known in China as “Delete A” or “Delete America”. Who is being xenophobic again?
or installing a great firewall to prevent US citizens from accessing their site.
Literally no one is suggesting this, but keep firing yourself up I guess.
Right. So if they sell ads on it, it’s not a speech platform right? Reddit, not a speech platform? The Washington Post? The Guardian? Lemmy, when lemmy instances start running ads, Not a speech platform? Gmail? Not a speech platform?
It’s not a speech platform, at best it could be loosely defines as “press”. Even if I’m generous and concede that, pretty sure there’s Supreme Court precedent for allowing the government to block the publication and dissemination of foreign press. Also no, Gmail is not a speech platform in this context lol.
It’s my ability to use the speech platform that gets banned in the process.
You need to stop picking the things in my comment you want to argue with and ignoring the rest. The First Amendment prevents the government from criminalizing or penalizing you, an American citizen, from engaging in protected speech. It does not prevent them from forcing a foreign company to divest or cease local US operations. Doing so does not infringe on your speech. Infringing on your speech would be something like criminalizing the act of downloading a tiktok apk and using the app after ByteDance was forced to shutter US operations.
You see the difference right? You’ll still be able to use TikTok after the (probably not happening) ban without any criminal or civil liability. If ByteDance says fuck it and geoblocks the US, you still haven’t been blocked from your speech by the US government, you’ve been blocked by ByteDance, and if you felt like suing them in China you could full send it if that was for you.
They can ban TikTok from being able to “do business” in the US, that is different from pulling it from the app store
Ban TikTok from earning any revenue in the US and they will pull the app themselves. Do you think TikTok is a charity or a non-profit or something?
And frankly, “doing business” has been an inherent part of speech platforms for decades, selling advertising on speech platforms is how they can exist, all the way back to the days of newspapers and radio.
Sure, press publications sell ads, no one said otherwise, not really sure what purpose stating the obvious serves. Ultimately, the US government is under no obligation to allow a foreign company to offer goods or services within its borders, regardless of whether it’s a “press” good or service.
To recap:
Unless you think that the Constitution applies to everyone in the entire world, in which case I guess I’ll need to buy some stock in Northrop and Lockheed.
Jesus christ bro you’re insufferable.
They get to do whatever they want because they’re a dicatorship. Saying the US government should be allowed to do something “because China does it” is a real slippery slope.
It’s a weird blend of trade war and cyber warfare, but for all intents and purposes it’s a trade war right now. No one was complaining that the US is blocking the sale of H100s in China are they? No.
We aren’t talking about oil extraction or car sales here, we’re talking about something which is explicitly a speech platform. They are different.
Except it’s not, it’s an ad platform.
It’s not just a “company” being banned, it’s the government telling you that you can’t use that companies services for your speech.
Nope, absolutely incorrect, it is indeed just a company being banned. I don’t think you fully understand what “speech” is, or really who the Constitution applies to. You do realize that the First Amendment means that the government may not jail, fine, or impose civil liability on people or organizations based on what they say or write, right? You also realize that preventing a company from doing business in the US because they’re beholden to an openly antagonistic nation-state is decidedly not the same as banning a company from doing business in the US because of its speech right?
Freedom of speech and the press has literally nothing at all to do with this.
That’s been my life for the past 10 years, you won’t regret it at all.