this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
504 points (96.5% liked)

Privacy

31982 readers
334 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

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

On the side bar it lists the following:

  • [Matrix/Element]Dead
  • Discord

"Discord" is an active link, but the Matrix link is completely inactive. Not only is it inactive (which could have be excused as a broken link), but it is also manually labeled as "Dead", as if there is no intention of making it work. How can a community that is focused on privacy willingly favor a service that is privacy non-respecting when a perfectly functional privacy-respecting alternative exists?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] null@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] sxan@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I dunno. The comment doesn't have the word in it now; that's why #1981 is important. But, maybe they didn't and I imagined it.

It remains true that not all compromises are equal, and the privacy compromises we make for Discord are relatively large compared to the ones for Matrix.

[–] null@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is an "edited" indicator for posts, and the post you're referring to doesn't have it.

Sure, your point is true, but you were (incorrectly) accusing the other commenter of skipping a qualifier that would make your point relevant.

[–] sxan@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

You're right; Voyager doesn't show the "edited" flag.

I was mistaken about the word, and the accusation about skipping over it was unwarrented.

I think this is missing the point by arguing semantics, but my phrasing was wrong.