Firefox having an empty check box on Blocks cross-site trackers is a lie.
Docs Enhanced Tracking Protection in Firefox for desktop
Ignoring isolation is misleading - in this marketing context a plain lie.
They could have made a differentiation between all-blocked vs some-blocked, but empty indicates none are blocked, which is a lie.
I assume this is about the hosted platform WordPress.com, not the software you and others can host and offer.
You can use RSS feeds to know about new videos, and any feed reader/manager like Feedbro to manage them.
Even the positive result in your first point I am skeptical of. Advertisements have a huge selection bias on what they show you. Even if it’s the topic you want, I’d be concerned about correctness, reasonability, viability. The highest bidder shows me ads, does that mean it’s the most expensive option? Most wasteful? Most manipulative into other spending or into vendor or thinking lock-in?
Open the actual post and you will see various and numerous answers, including mine.
https://lemmy.world/post/8317669
Dunno why you @ me on my comment when I specifically talked about not using an app but the website.
Any working what?
I’m using the website of my instance. Lemmy instances typically have their own website you can use - which is exactly or slightly modified versions of the interface of the Lemmy project.
If you trust your instance with your account and its associated data surely you trust it’s website.
Yes
The secure password isn’t only in your securely encrypted password database. You transfer it into forms, then over network, then you don’t know what happens on the other parties side.
Having a separate factor where you verify you have the second factor (preferably a separate device, physically separate) is an important and significant elevation of security.
On anything you deem high importance it’s warranted. Elsewhere it’s weighing security and convenience.
Does textise support what Reader mode doesn’t? If reader mode can’t determine the central content, does textise have more logic to so so?
Given the wording I also want to point out a website doesn’t have to actively explicitly support reader mode. They only have to follow html website standards marking their content - a general accessibility approach too.
“they” don’t
There are a lot of different views on it between people and EU institutions and they’re having difficulties finding a compromise. After all this time and reduction of scope and severity, the one they have now still can’t proceed because of how far apart they all are in their opinions, assessments, and positions.
And now that they started questioning the driving person about their press-reported links to the big scanning software lobby orgs, with questionable results, even more people will become skeptical.
Is it a leak if it’s a necessary technical part to a functionality?
The main issue is that it’s not obvious to non-technical users. They can’t asses what sharing IP address means either though.
The reason Telegram leaks a user’s IP addresses during a call is that, by default, Telegram uses a peer-to-peer connection between callers “for better quality and reduced latency,” Telegram spokesperson Remi Vaughn told TechCrunch.
“The downside of this is that it necessitates that both sides know the IP address of the other (since it is a direct connection). Unlike on other messengers, calls from those who are not your contact list will be routed through Telegram’s servers to obscure that,” Vaughn said.
To avoid leaking your IP address, you have to go to Telegram’s Settings > Privacy and Security > Calls, and then select “Never” in the Peer-to-Peer menu, as shown below.
Telegram defaults to using p2p for calls, for contacts only.
It’s not a thorough privacy default, but otherwise seems fine to me. If you want p2p it needs to be enabled, and if you don’t it needs to be disabled. No-contacts and no-calls receive no IP.
Post a link to a channel of 1k users and 1k users send a request to the website, instead of only the server once?
/edit: From a privacy standpoint I’d really trust my chat server provider over random websites. So I definitely don’t see how it’s a terrible choice for these two reasons.
That being said, if you’re concerned, disabling previews is the answer.
Who is eligible for compensation?
… all UK consumers who bought goods or services from a business who advertised using search advertising services provided by Google. This is effectively everyone in the UK.
Consumers do not have to have seen these goods and services advertised on Google, or used Google to have purchased the goods or services. This is because the claim says that these inflated prices were paid by everyone if the business advertised on Google.
Consumers affected by the Google claim could be owed around £100 if the claim is won. They will not pay costs or fees to participate. The claim is being funded by global litigation funder Hereford Litigation.
An interesting case and claim. Indirect correlation.
Bluetooth data transmission is encrypted. Initialization typically happens only through the press of a physical button.
I assume you’re using wireless devices of the same manufacturer, that uses an alternative that is not Bluetooth, and has automatic pairing without a safeguard.
This is not about wireless primarily. Use a decent product and standard and you don’t have that issue.
I wouldn’t use it.
Seems to me like free plan is what browsers natively support anyway. (Scam site blacklist. I highly suspect they use the same. They can’t compete with the one Google hosts and all major browsers integrate.)
And instead of paying 15 usd per month, Windows defender is a well funded, well established, well trusted solution.
There’s no practical gain in blockage before download. Windows defender scans upon and after download, before execution.