Pamasich

Liability waivers don’t apply outside the US.

reluctance to stop dealing with Russia

Can you name examples?

We did always implement all the EU sanctions afaik.

In case you meant us not using Russian assets to help Ukraine like the EU does, iirc they’re using interest, not the actual assets, for that. Which I remember reading (but don’t have a source right now) isn’t possible for Switzerland due to how they are stored in commercial banks rather than central repositories. And just seizing them would be illegal. It’s not like we don’t want to (though that’s probably a factor too), but more like we can’t.

The Nazi gold is still very much a thing.

The Nazi gold was given back. It’s very much not a thing anymore. And back to the jews I mean, not Germany.

This only applies though if it’s a per-device passkey that uses a private key stored securely that cannot be exported.

If the private key can be exported, it can be stolen and the factors becomes invalid.

But people also store their private key in cloud solutions (some here mentioned doing that) which just makes the factor invalid anyway, since then it’s not device-bound anymore, and it’s the device that verifies your identity with those methods.

Like, what if someone hacks the cloud service storing the passkeys and steals them? Not really any different from storing passwords in a cloud, and that one isn’t called 2FA either.

Does this even make any difference outside of Switzerland (were pirating for personal use is actually legal)?

I mean, it’s positive for both sides. Russia has a war economy now, they NEED to keep going or their economy will collapse. And a war with NATO might get China involved as well on their side, so it’s not like Russia would be fucked for sure.

Ukraine isn’t a US puppet btw (I assume that’s whom you mean with nazis). I do disagree with the nazi claim too, but I’m not going to be able to convince you there, so I’m not going to try either. But Ukraine isn’t a US puppet, they literally have to beg the US to help them out. A puppet wouldn’t have to ask, as their actions would be in their master’s interest in the first place. They’d get full support. Whether you believe them to be the good or the bad guys, Ukraine is in this of its own volition, not because the US or Europe told them they have to fight.

Of course he does, Russia will outlast Ukraine in the long run if NATO countries don’t start joining the fight. I don’t see how it would be a surprise that he dreams of getting actual help.

Even if Ukraine somehow wins this, the war got to be exhausting and stressful for him and everyone else involved. Getting help, or even just a second enemy for Russia to be distracted by, would be a positive for them no matter where this goes.

I’m a bit confused by comments on this topic. Do sovereign countries not have the right anymore to decide their own laws and issue punishment when they’re not followed?

Like, they obviously can’t enforce these fines. This article says as much. The fines can’t be enforced, but if 4chan ignores them, that opens the door for other measures like delisting the site from search engines or blocking access to it from the UK (these two examples are taken from the article). Which are fair measures imo.

Like, to the people saying UK can’t do laws which apply to services which are merely accessible in the UK and have no physical presence there, do you also apply this logic to the GDPR, which works the same way? The US has these laws too, like COPPA iirc. It’s not really something the UK came up with, it’s a bit of a standard with laws like this as far as I know.

I hope a country like switzerland or something lets companies host servers there for europe without enforcing dumb laws from uk/european union.

Not going to happen with Switzerland and EU laws. Being completely surrounded by the EU, we’re really bad with leverage and are already struggling to not have worse and worse deals forced on us. Plus, we have our own Chat Control type law coming up (which is why Proton is leaving). There’s no way we’ll take a stance against EU law.

Like I said, I love Windows 11. I actually prefer its features in general to what I’ve seen of Linux, I prefer its design a lot, and there’s some stuff, like WSA and autohotkey, which simply doesn’t exist on Linux with the same simplicity as far as I know. Can’t use classic shell on linux either, and the start menus I have seen either looked ugly or were more launchers than start menus.

I love Windows 11 (the non-copilot+ version) and am positive on AI, but if they pull through with this vision, I WILL switch to Linux once Win11 support ends.

the brits really need to learn from the french how to protest.

You mean like how the french aren’t protesting their country’s support of Chat Control? At least I can’t find any information on them doing so.

Donating costs me money. Donating to every single website I like or rely on requires far more money than I have available or am willing to spend. I don’t know your situation, but I’m not rich. I don’t have that kind of disposable income to just throw around.

That said, thanks for mentioning that. I did donate to kbin when it was still around, but I’ve forgotten to set up donations for mbin and kbin.earth since switching over. I’ll have to get on with that.

YouTube just quietly blocked Adblock Plus

They’ve been A/B testing anti-adblock attempts for months or even years now, idk exactly with my sense of time. Sometimes adblocker A doesn’t work, sometimes adblocker B doesn’t work. Sometimes switching browser makes the same adblocker work, sometimes clearing cookies helps, sometimes its dependent on your account. Different users at the same time report different experiences with different adblockers. Sometimes watching a single non-blocked ad restores adblocker functionality magically for a few days.

What I’m trying to say is, this didn’t “just” happen, and it’s specifically the author’s current experience. I myself use Adblock Plus on Edge and Youtube works perfectly fine currently. This has been happening for a long time, and I’m sure there’s uBlock Origin users currently who have the same experience while Adblock Plus works for them. Since that’s how it’s been the last times I’ve seen people talk about this, everyone talking about different experiences.

I’m using Adblock Plus, because of their Acceptable Ads system. Imo it’s far more ethical to regulate ads than to ban them entirely. Websites have to make money to sustain themselves, and ads are the least intrusive way this can be done besides donations (and let’s be honest, most websites can’t support themselves on donations alone). I’d rather have an ad or two at the end of an article than a paywall.

I would love to switch to a different adblocker, ABP has quite enshittified over the years imo. But it would have to be one with Acceptable Ads support.

Acceptable Ads is the very reason I’m still using Adblock Plus. What’s the problem with it? It’s an optional feature, just turn it off and you don’t have to deal with it at all.

Time for community git to somehow be federated like lemmy.

Already being worked on for a while. It’s called ForgeFed and being developed by Forgejo (the software powering codeberg). It’s an extension to the ActivityPub protocol, which is also powering the fediverse.

Update 7/31/25 4:10pm PT: Hours after this article was published, OpenAI said it removed the feature from ChatGPT that allowed users to make their public conversations discoverable by search engines. The company says this was a short-lived experiment that ultimately “introduced too many opportunities for folks to accidentally share things they didn’t intend to.”

Interesting, because the checkbox is still there for me. Don’t see things having changed at all, maybe they made the fine print more white? But nothing else.

In general, this reminds me of the incognito drama. Iirc people were unhappy that incognito mode didn’t prevent Google websites from fingerprinting you. Which… the mode never claimed to do, it explicitly told you it didn’t do that.

For chats to be discoverable through search engines, you not only have to explicitly and manually share them, you also have to then opt in to having them appear on search machines via a checkbox.

The main criticism I’ve seen is that the checkbox’s main label only says it makes the chat “discoverable”, while the search engines clarification is in the fine print. But I don’t really understand how that is unclear. Like, even if they made them discoverable through ChatGPT’s website only (so no third party data sharing), Google would still get their hands on them via their crawler. This is just them skipping the middleman, the end result is the same. We’d still hear news about them appearing on Google.

This just seems to me like people clicking a checkbox based on vibes rather than critical thought of what consequences it could have and whether they want them. I don’t see what can really be done against people like that.

I don’t think OpenAI can be blamed for doing the data sharing, as it’s opt-in, nor for the chats ending up on Google at all. If the latter was a valid complaint, it would also be valid to complain to the Lemmy devs about Lemmy posts appearing on Google. And again, I don’t think the label complaint has much weight to it either, because if it’s discoverable, it gets to Google one way or another.

Plus, you explicitly have to opt into this, for each chat you share individually.

I get that it says “discoverable” at first and the search engines are in the fine print, but search engine crawlers get it anyway if it’s discoverable on ChatGPT’s website instead. That term is plenty clear imo.

ChatGPT chats are only public when turned into a shareable chat (which is a manually created snapshot of the chat with a link). And they only show up on search machines if you, after sharing, select the opt-in checkbox for having it show up there.

I don’t know how duck.ai works, but I assume it doesn’t do this.