linuxandrew

NewPipe blocks ads, and optionally blocks Shorts. NewPipe does also happen to break YouTube's terms of service.

My opinion is that YouTube should be forced to permit third party clients (interoperate). NewPipe and the various other clients are proof that there is a desire for alternative experiences and more toggles and options. Forcing users to identity themselves online to watch videos (or certain classes of videos) is a privacy nightmare, dystopic even.

GrapheneOS scores well and rightly so, but my main gripe is that they don't ship F-Droid and they actively steer users to Google Play and Aurora instead.

It's weird because the only AOSP app store that has any hope in hell of providing meaningful security and privacy to users is F-Droid, through its FOSS-only stance.

That's not to say that GOS shouldn't exclusively provide and steer users to F-Droid. There are good, practical reasons for providing compatibility to allow users to consume Google Play Services on apps that they need. I get it. I just happen to think most users in the know would want to escape that ecosystem.

Podman doesn't have a dependency on systemd. e.g. it is packaged in Void Linux.

Podman has a better architecture than Docker in that it can easily run on a non-privileged user.

Quadlet (aka podman-systemd.unit) is a podman-systemd integration which can make it easy to launch and orchestrate podman containers via systemd. You can get all if the systemd dependency handling, require other units to run after a container finishes, and all sorts of other useful things. Systemd "user" units (systemctl --user) also works here with the containers running as a non-privileged user in a non-root systemd context.

Just to be clear, Quadlet is just an integration and you can still run podman without it. You can still run podman on non-systemd systems as well.

I mean you can find porn on Google and you don't have to look that hard

You wouldn't be doing anyone a favour by committing electoral fraud.

But that aside, although Australia doesn't require any ID on election day, Australians do register with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) with their name, address and date of birth. AEC workers have a printed copy of these records on election day. Obvious anomalies like someone with a different age can be reported. Otherwise anomalies like multiple votes from the same address are investigated, I imagine by interviewing the person at that address.

The AEC provides transparency about how it detects fraud and the penalties that can be imposed for people who are caught doing it. The point is that this is quite rare. The AEC's aim is to lower barriers to voting in the first place so that all people can. By detecting anomalies and using tipoffs the AEC estimates the impact of voter fraud and takes a scientific approach to recommend against raising barriers to vote.

Me neither, in Qld.

Maybe but that would be voter fraud and quite a serious offence, like going to prison for ten years, which is why not many people do that.

> They can opt out, by not participating with the site

The definition of social media under the legislation is essentially any form of digital communication that allows two or more people to communicate, as decided by the minister.

> No one is mandated to use social media

OK, I'll bite. What if you want to join an interest group (crafts, technical, political etc) that organises meetings digitally on a social media site? Sure, you have the choice to not use a social media website, and if you do, in all likelihood not join your choice of interest group. The point is that Meta long used unfair and anti-competitive means to corner the market, and obviously not to interoperate so that it is difficult for people to leave. This might surprise you but the relationship between platforms and users is usually coerced and not really consensual. If you do not find yourself in this position, good for you. I'm a very firm believer that anti-competitive social media companies should be regulated in positive ways, like forcing interoperability and forcing companies to making algorithmic content opt-in.

> if you are on social media platforms with algo feeds, you are signalling that this works for you

Yeah except people are usually on those platforms for many reasons, like access to group chats and messages, as the platforms have a wide reach. A lot of people become outcasts by quitting social media, myself included, because our friends choose to continue to use it.

myID as it stands is a bit of a farce. It uses OIDC under the hood, but it only supports end users that download the myID app on their smartphone via the Google Play Store or Apple App Store. Security is effectively outsourced to Google and Apple as the user's identity is "pinned" to their smartphone.

Take myGov in contrast which is web-capable and supports users to use a Yubikey or Passkey/Webauthn-capable device to authenticate.

Under the Australian Digital ID scheme myGov will likely be usurped by myID, which is, in my view, an inferior scheme which blatantly ignores basic standards.

> They specifically don’t prescribe any particular age verification methods. This would be a great time to follow up with legislation that updates their national IDs to be able to provide cryptographically secure proofs of age without leaking identity.

Hard disagree. We do not need an internet driver's license. Australians are supposed to have a right to interact with organisations with privacy protections under the Privacy Act 1988, like APP2 which allows individuals to deal with organisations anonymously or pseudonymously.

Social media companies are doing a great deal of harm to society, but banning under-16s is tackling the symptom, not the problem. All people should have more rights and protections, like opting out (or better, opting in) to infinite scroll and algorithmic content suggestions as opposed to subscribed content. Algorithmic content today is akin to spam in the early 2000s which governments regulated and has had some impact on bad behaviour by local companies (of course I am not under any pretense that spam will ever really be solved). Social media users should be able to opt in or out of content categories which AI could potentially help with that categorisation, ideally in an uber-transparent way.

I'm young enough that "modern" social media was just starting up when I was a teenager. It's not clear that banning under 16s from modern digital communication would provide any benefits (which, by the way, social media is very loosely defined under the amendment).

> Absent that, I’m sure many of the comments to come will worry about the privacy implications.

The big issue is that we are importing the UK model which will see identity outsourcing to companies like Yoti and AU10TIX, the latter which was hacked in 2021 and led to some pretty serious implications for affected users.

Of course the reality is that Meta is already doing age and identity verification on users who use privacy-protecting technologies like Firefox Container Tabs, at least in Australia, and has been for a number of years. This usually leads to an account being blocked until the user provides their ID via a photo. This will become formalised so that accounts that are detected as possibly being U16 (via various techniques like profiling and data matching against external sources) will be requested ID, and Yoti will likely be used to actually perform that verification.

Another big concern will be that this is forced onto smaller operators like Australian Mastodon sites, internet forums, mailing lists and others.

Ty, I'll fix it very soon :) Something's up with Certbot and it's probably a trivial fix.