Privacy

31815 readers

395 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
Don't promote proprietary software
Try to keep things on topic
If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
Be nice :)

Related communities

Chat rooms

[Matrix/Element]Dead
Discord

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

221

Google is Killing uBlock Origin. No Chromium Browser is Safe. (www.quippd.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by yoasif@fedia.io to c/privacy@lemmy.ml

82 comments fedilink hide all child comments

We’ve been anticipating it for years,1 and it’s finally happening. Google is finally killing uBlock Origin – with a note on their web store stating that the ...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

You can read this reference to closed source in the most charitable way as alluding to the whole motley of things that render it less accessible.

Not when they use the conjunction "so". If they'd used "and", then sure - there could be any number of reasons. Using "so" as a conjunction like that in the sentence gives it an equivalent definition of "therefore", so it's like saying "Vivaldi is closed source, therefore it's harder for users to investigate", which is clearly an inaccurate statement.

In any case, OP has attempted to shift the goalposts many times in some kind of weird gotcha attempt instead of just admitting they were wrong or worded their argument poorly. If people want charitable interpretations of their misleading or inaccurate statements then they should behave in a manner that deserves them. Going full redditor ain't it.

[–] abbenm@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Not when they use the conjunction “so”. If they’d used “and”, then sure - there could be any number of reasons. Using “so” as a conjunction like that in the sentence gives it an equivalent definition of “therefore"

You're technically correct in your narrow focus on the conjunction "so," but you are missing the bigger picture. Yes, "so" generally functions as a logical connector like "therefore," meaning that the first statement is directly causing the second. Their sentence could be read as "Vivaldi is closed source, therefore it's harder for users to investigate," which isn't a comprehensive or precise statement on its own.

But that's a pretty pedantic take. The point that they were making doesn't rely on an exacting technical breakdown of the closed-source nature of Vivaldi. Rather, they're making a general observation that closed-source projects tend to be harder to investigate. With that in mind, the use of "so" is informal and reflects a broad conclusion that aligns with general knowledge about open vs. closed-source software. Closed source inherently implies limitations on access, which, while not exhaustive in this single sentence, still holds weight in the general sense.

[–] yoasif@fedia.io -1 points 2 weeks ago

"Vivaldi is closed source, therefore it's harder for users to investigate", which is clearly an inaccurate statement.

Why is it an inaccurate statement?

What user are you thinking of?