Oh dear, thanks for the link. I would have voted no, too. It does not sound like a great institution. (Although I’m German and reading about it for the first time rn, so…)
From what I read in this article, I’m not even sure it would be properly democratic? Reads like a government advisory body which claims to represent the interests of a specific heritage - pretty strange.
Again, you’re confused.
I think your credibility would be greater if you weren’t so bad at trying to gaslight the other participants. 😄
irony is a difficult concept
What a clownish thing to say.
That doesn’t sound convincing at all. There’s just no irony in addressing privacy on YouTube.
There’s no irony in talking about press freedom in the unfree press nor is there anything ironic about a serf lamenting the socage in their Middle Ages village squares.
People converse where people are. That is trivial.
If you think that putting content on YT and pushing more people to the platform hence giving them more data while talking about protecting your data from corporations is not ironic then you simply don’t know what irony is.
It’s either that… or - and that’s possible as well - you might be wrong. There’s entire meme traditions surrounding the ridiculousness of your remark.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-somewhat
Yes, for sure, by simply connecting to the internet using my local provider and public backbone infrastructure (I’m not in US) I’m supporting corporations. Next you will tell me I’m supporting Saudi Arabia by turning light on in my bathroom.
You are getting dangerously close to understanding my reply. It was deliberately ridiculous, and is equivalent to the ridiculousness of your initial observation. Yes, there is and will be discourse around privacy on YouTube. No, it is not ironic.
I get it, I just find it ironic that people post privacy related content on a platform run by the worst company in the world privacy wise.
This website you are commenting on has been delivered to you through billions worth of corporate infrastructure. Often these companies have long track records of privacy violations and corruption, and you reproduce their power by your participation. Yet you still seem to be using the Internet.
Open source can make it easier to audit software, but we’re long past the point where we can’t audit unfree and/or closed source software. Open source is great and important, but the debate around open source regarding trust and security is often a sideshow.
If 1. all participating devices are sufficiently secure and will be sufficiently secure in the future, 2. no participating device backs up your conversations to the cloud or only does so in a sufficiently encrypted manner, and 3. no participating user leaks your information in any other way, then yes, the general expectation is that your WhatsApp chats with people are encrypted. Keep in mind that defaults, nudges, and people work against you in this long list of requirements.
Oh, and… more importantly… metadata. But that’s a separate issue. WhatsApp’s encryption claim could be entirely true, but still work against user privacy, simply because those conditions are almost never true …and also, again, meta data.
Users conscientious enough to consistently meet all of these requirements could simply use a platform deemed less hostile to user privacy, such as Matrix or Signal.
Why would context be important here? Institutionally it is a bad idea, even if an indigenous population ten times as big would’ve been mistreated ten times worse. The hard question would be: How would anything happening in the past improve this specific policy proposal?
It seems very lacking on a legitimacy level, appears to be functionally questionable and has evidently led to increased polarization prior to even being enacted.
I like that it’s very prosaic and well crafted. I don’t like that they fail to make the case how past and current tragedies relate to the specific proposal. There’s also no evidence, benchmarking or any other kind of reference indicating the expected performance of their proposed setup. I’ve yet to find a paper outlining how the “voice” is actually supposed to work.
That’s cool. Why didn’t they do two proposals, one with the acknowledgement the other one with the suspicious institution?
It’s asking for the creation of a permanent advisory body. Are we on the same page here?
I do think representation and inclusion matter a lot and, as said, I’d strongly oppose this advisory body. Do you think it’s a black and white issue? One needs to like this specific thing or be a bad person?
I don’t think that is a productive take on this referendum. There are certainly many loving and caring people on all sides of this referendum.