While he did say those things, it doesn’t mean anyone was willing to fight for it internally. This is why many external companies that do so well on the open market die and wither after they get acquired by big companies. Internal politics don’t have to be rational externally.

i think it was just standard politics, everybody had to take a haircut, and nobody in leadership wanted to fight for that studio, it didn’t have a patron/protector. It got killed because no executive was championing it, not because it was bad.

Promotes/deploys are just different ways of saying file transfer, which is what we see here.

Nothing was stopping people from doing cicd in the old days.

Yeah, if your platform has opinions then you don’t have actual free speech.

Email is free speech.

Mail is free speech.

Talking in a square is free speech.

Talking to friends Is free speech.

Anything where a third party can deny, edit, shadow ban, or delay is not free speech.

Twitter is not free speech

Facebook is not free speech

Whatsapp is not free speech

Newspaper opinion pieces are not free speech

If they’re going to do this, then customers can get support via text messaging right? They’re not going to have to call in to talk to a computer to have their voice turned into text for an agent right?

This isn’t about asymmetrically wasting the time of the customer so they don’t call support at all, right?

Fair enough. They did not explicitly say they removed it for complexity.

The facts are: they started with a protocol that had perfect forward secrecy, and they removed it, but not for philosophical reasons.

They were not opposed to perfect forward secrecy

In today’s ecosystem there are products that use onion networks and provide perfect for secrecy like simple x, and briar over tor…

You’re welcome to make any decision you like, if you want to use session go right ahead. I’m not going to stop you, and I’m happy you’re doing so. We’re all better for choice

To me, this only makes sense if it’s integrated advertising in the browser. Trying to get third party websites to use their advertising network probably will be a very difficult sale.

It could be a way of greenwashing, or whatever the expression is for privacy washing, businesses like meta, Google, by letting them license a “privacy friendly” advertisement platform.

As far as I’m aware, there’s only two major online advertising platforms, meta and Google. So breaking in is a third platform would be difficult, unless they could integrate into apps directly through Mozilla’s app footprint

https://www.anonymco.com/

driving advertising performance requires privacy-enhancing approaches to data driven marketing. Anonym’s privacy preserving solutions allow you to take full advantage of your data assets.

Fundamentally, privacy and data-driven marketing are diametrically opposed

Here’s how it works:

• Secure Environment: Data sets are matched in a highly secure environment, ensuring advertisers, publishers, and Anonym don’t access any user level data.
• Anonymized Analytics: The process results in anonymized insights and models, helping advertisers measure and improve campaign performance while safeguarding consumer privacy.
• Differential Privacy Algorithms: These algorithms add “noise” to the data, protecting it from being traced back to individual users.

Okay. It’s still boils down to give us all the data and trust us. But hopefully they’re more trustworthy than other people, and not corrupted by influence and money like other humans are?

By combining Mozilla’s scale and trusted reputation with Anonym’s cutting-edge technology, we can enhance user privacy and advertising effectiveness, leveling the playing field for all stakeholders.

I was surprised they said they’re so explicitly, but yeah they’re trying to monetize the Mozilla reputation for things that I’m not sure stick to their core philosophy

Sometimes we need to talk about grandpappy.

It’s not a lie. I have read their post. And my interpretation reading between the lines is they dropped it because of complexity

https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices

Hardware, firmware and software specific to devices like drivers play a huge role in the overall security of a device. The goal of the project is not to slightly improve some aspects of insecure devices and supporting a broad set of devices would be directly counter to the values of the project. A lot of the low-level work also ends up being fairly tied to the hardware.

TLDR - Google open bootloader, able to relock the bootloader with custom keys, AOSP, hardware binaries freely accessible, as well as the hardware security features on pixel phones.

Selected Items

• Support for using alternate operating systems including full hardware security functionality

• Complete monthly Android Security Bulletin patches without any regular delays longer than a week

• Vendor code updated to new monthly, quarterly and yearly releases of AOSP within several months to provide new security improvements (Pixels receive these in the month they’re released)

• Isolated radios (cellular, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, NFC, etc.), GPU, SSD, media encode / decode, image processor and other components

…

Is google pixel the only group capable of making a secure phone? No, anyone could do it, but only google pixel IS doing it.

Opt-in ; Respecting Agency; Explicit Consent.

Microsoft has every intention of SHOVING this down your throat, and only corporate group policy will be exempted. They will use every nag screen, dark pattern, accidently enabling with updates, randomized installs, to make it happen. Look at what they do with edge, for an example. MS absolutely does not respect consent. #MS-MeToo

Apple for all its faults, respects people when they say No, and if they say it’s opt-in, they have a track record to back that up. Apple says ‘Hey look at this cool new feature you can use’, and I think Horray - more choice.

Skimming all the comments, didn’t see this mentioned explicitly

That is to say you can’t secure a non pixel Android phone

I’m available

Walled gardens are antithetical to real privacy.

The fact that they claim to be the most private, but also the most closed, is a contradiction. And that irony doesn’t sit well with a lot of people

Respect for gamers nexus. When they get annoyed, they stay proper annoyed!

With a little adoption yes it could. We could pass around checksums of known good blocks, or checksums of known advertisements. Or the audio signature of known good blocks or the audio signature of known advertisements.

So a service is like sponsor block would now just be a curated list of either good or bad signatures be them checksums or audio signatures or video signatures. There would be some engineering work to account for different compression ratios etc but it’s totally doable

Are you using a 3d printed enclosure for your old framework mainaboard/homelab machine?

If you look at the bottom of the laptop each of the modules should have a indentation you can push out.

Going to the store is traveling through time.