• 0 Posts
  • 44 Comments
Joined 19 days ago
cake
Cake day: August 18th, 2025

help-circle


  • I wouldn’t. I like the idea of repurposing old electronics, but the issue is, it’s meant to be a low powered device meant to run off a battery.

    You can run Plex off a RPi and those are like $20. A bit more if you want the case and heatsinks and such. They are also (similar to the Android) low powered ARM64 computers, but the hardware and software is more open.

    I also have an old 128GB Android phone. I use it as a cosplay prop and I treat it like an iPod Touch. I’m primarily an iPhone guy, so of course it has Apple Music on it, but I also know Android and know where Android excels, so it also has Firefox with uBlock Origin, and Nova Launcher Prime. It’s way better to type on because the iOS keyboard has always been dogshit.

    Also, you’re in the Piracy community. Not to be pedantic, but this is where you’d go to ask how to get the files to populate your music streaming server with. That’s my weakness there — I mostly self-host stuff I’ve bought and ripped myself. There are good tools and you’ll find good advice here, but something something old dogs, something something new tricks (me being the old dog, not you, unless you are, in which case, good on you for trying to break the mould). Right. So, what you want is the Self-Hosted community. Don’t ask them about where to get the music (that’s this community), but they can help on hardware and software. Me, I just use Plex, and I host it off a Mac mini. My desktop computer. You don’t need to spend nearly that much on a server. My Mac is a couple generations out now, but it’s still overkill for a music server.

    The only time I use either of my phones as servers in any capacity is to like send a few files or something — and yes, I can do it just as capably with either. Honestly though both of them can easily host a file server another phone (either platform) can connect to and download from.


  • I hate to say it, but I don’t think Wikipedia is as neutral or as open as it claims to be. Some of the article comments talk about there definitely being some bias against anonymous editors, even if they’re correct.

    I’m not sure if it was in that article or in another comment section, but someone said after Elon Musk did the Nazi salute at Trump’s event, an anonymous user mentioned it and there was a big controversy. And a registered user took it down and berated them for it, and another registered user came along an added the salute info back in and it was fine. Or something like that.

    I definitely still think Wikipedia is a net good. But it seems to me any time you have a centralised source of information, a small group of people will fight to control the narrative so they can spin it any which way they want. For example, on Reddit, my favorite band’s unofficial subreddit is run by a guy who bans any fan cams of the events — unless they’re his. So obviously he does fan cams so he can make ad money on YouTube, but he uses Reddit to block those of others to direct the traffic to his. I think Fandom (the shitty wiki site with all the ads) run a lot of gaming communities, again, to drive ad revenue. Lot of that shit going on. I mean, if they tried that on Lemmy, someone could just open a community on another instance and the users could then decide who they want to support.

    Is Wikipedia susceptible to that kind of influence? Of course it is. And I worry about it being taken over by the wrong people. I don’t think that has happened yet, but I’ve seen it happen on other sites.

    To be clear, we should definitely support Wikipedia against the alt right, but we should also be cautious that they, and other bad actors, don’t destroy its credibility from within. Yes, the alt right has their own Wikipedia (Conservapedia or something like that) but that’s not good enough, they want ours to be theirs, too.



  • Right, the part I don’t get is, the video of you isn’t going to include what you’re looking at. And if it does you can say they faked it. They could put anything there. They don’t have a shot that includes both you and the screen. They can get sound though, so they can match sound, but that can be faked too. Strip out the audio. Separate the sounds of what you were really watching from the ambient sounds (and the grunts/moans from you) and then dub those sounds over the new audio and it should be passable.

    Also, I just wouldn’t do anything embarrassing with a camera pointed at me. I’d cover the camera or point it away from me. Even sitting on the toilet browsing, back cameras point down at the floor, front camera points up, maybe gets the top of my face? Nothing private is seen by the camera by my best intentions. I just do this naturally. I guess others don’t?





  • Rest of the world: Yeah, we know. Except, it wasn’t just in Poland.

    X is owned by a guy who supports fascist causes in Europe. He used to support one in the US until they had a falling out. He did the Nazi arm gesture (albeit with the wrong arm, IIRC). Then (or perhaps before) he got rid of a bunch of content moderators.

    We know exactly where he stands and what he stands for.

    That said, there are still good people on Twitter. My wife and a bunch of her artist friends. I keep telling her, it’s bad news up there, it’s supporting a bad dude… but this whole community is up there and they won’t move. I’m not sure what it will take at this point.

    Honestly all social media is kinda trash these days.

    Facebook has literally had people killed. Some anti-government rebels were using Facebook in some third world country (I forget the name), and Facebook gave their location data to the government. Volunteered it even. Guess who stopped using Facebook. Wonder what happened. Oh yeah, and you know what Mark Zuckerberg calls his users? “Dumb fucks.” Literally. Can’t make this shit up.

    Reddit was built on CSAM, they even sent one of their early moderators a physical award for running a subreddit with upskirt shots of underage girls. (He was very publicly outed. Guess who didn’t even protect the guy who helped build their empire?) They also tried to falsely accuse a third-party app developer of blackmailing them, but the guy recorded the conversation. A bunch of people rebelled but they all came back around. I myself got banned for suggesting stiffer penalties for child abuse, and I lost the appeal (I figured maybe an AI tagged me but a human would overturn it, but no). So I figure they did me a favor.

    I think it’s mostly the same people who use all these services, from Facebook to right here on Lemmy. And in any group of people, you have a few bad apples. But I think you have to look at the people leading it. What they stand for, how they see the world, the kind of world they want to make.






  • So… they let you uninstall it? Or are we talking about spyware not made by Meta?

    Because the way I understand it, Meta has been hacking iPhones ever since the App Tracking Protection thing came about. Mostly via the in-app browser. Point is, Tim Cook said Meta can continue to track you, they just have to get your permission first, and even if you said no, they still found a way to do it anyway. Therefore, are Meta products not spyware?

    (So are Google products. On iPhone, you block ads system-wide with a DNS filter. Same as you do on an unrooted Android phone, since you don’t have access to the HOSTS file — rooted users are just using AdAway or something like it to update HOSTS. Anyway, Google apps use Google DNS, which they say makes them faster, but it also has the convenient upshot (to them) of going around your ad blocking, and forcing ads on a user who has explicitly configured their device to block them.)




  • You know what I find deplorable? Spyware as a feature. Like Android.

    Also, Google bypasses ad blockers. Say you have an iPhone, or an unrooted Android phone. You’re blocking ads? You’re using DNS to do it. The Google app, and Google apps in general, ignore the system DNS settings and use Google’s own DNS. There are some good reasons they do it, but the chief upshot for Google is, they get to inject ads into a device whose owner explicitly tries to block them. Since ads can also carry malware/ransomware, Google is intentionally opening a security hole in a device you may not be able to 100% secure, but could be fairly secure. Relatively secure. For a smartphone.

    I actually got ransomware on a popular Android blog through an ad they served. I’d just wiped my phone — this was the last Android phone I’d owned. So I mean, I’d wiped the internal ROM. Repartitioned it, installed a recovery (TWRP, naturally), and then flashed a custom OS. Back then, you couldn’t get stock Android on a national carrier in the US. So, I was flashing a European CFW customised with the CDMA radios that the US was using at the time (we’re all GSM now like the rest of the world, I think the last CDMA towers, which were 3G, have been shut down but I’m not sure — Sprint and US Cellular were CDMA and they’re both part of T-Mobile, and Verizon was the big one and they’re all on the GSM tech now). Anyway, I hadn’t installed AdAway yet, I was just reading tech blogs, when my screen went red, said illegal content was detected on my device, pay “the FBI” so many thousand dollars in Bitcoin to unlock my device. I laughed, wiped the internal ROM again and started over… installing AdAway before going out to the open web. Lesson learned. But that’s the kind of thing Google intentionally opens its users up to by tunneling around the ad blocker. (I don’t name the tech blog because I contacted them and they were very helpful in identifying the source of the ransomware attacks and getting that advertiser de-listed. So there is no reason to “name and shame.” But it can happen to anyone, and without even going to “shady” sites.)


  • Yes. If you’re a free developer (you have to register as a developer to even do this), you have to re-authorise the app every 7 days or it gets “revoked” which means the app will not launch.

    You also have to install a certificate that certifies the app(s) to you. This is generally safe, but you should be careful with trust certificates. You’re basically taking full responsibility for the code that’s being executed on your device. If you haven’t audited the source code (or if someone you trust hasn’t), it might be a risk.

    If you used a signing service, someone has bought a bunch of paid developer licenses and they’ve given you the certificate for one of them. Once Apple discovers this, they’ll revoke that developer license which revokes your apps. The signing service will then issue you a new certificate. Revokes aren’t super common, or so they say (I’ve never used a signing service).