UBI may sound like a worthwhile endeavor to a great many people, but I can't help but think of what we give up with such a system.
If I politicaly dissent from the majority (whomsoever that is or whatever they believe) what stops them—the government as often described—from stopping UBI from those that are deemed "unfit."
By definition they're not doing UBI then. That doesn't alleviate your concern that that's how things might go, but your concern is that UBI might not be UBI.
I'm old enough to remember influential TV people advocating for the revocation of the "rights" of certain people to healthcare, employment or even being allowed to leave their own homes if they refused to be injected with the special science juice. That was just a hypothetical scenario! The sad reality in America is that anything real like UBI would be politically weaponized from practically day one.
The eff had an interesting article[1] about this issue (and others) as well as some alternative ways solve the issue, not that I agree with all of them.
Ultimately, this is the wrong approach. The internet should be "open," and people or companies should be free to link to whatever they want without penalty.
> Break up the ad-tech sector, open up app stores, end-to-end delivery
I thought they stood for freedom, and now they want to pass laws on how software can work?!
Their literally saying this software code can't be this way, you need to submit a PR to change how it works to match this law. If this isn't the antithesis of freedom I don't know what is.
That makes it sound like ad companies are invading the websites of news companies who are resisting.
These news organizations want to have their cake and eat it too. They rely on these platforms for traffic. Now they also want to be paid for getting that traffic. That's not how this works.
The same exact way they are doing here - pass a law requiring the company to comply with certain standards if it wants to operate in Canada and lawfully provide services to Canadian customers. Standards that could, for example, include the requirement for all content on the platform to be indexable. Or even to mandate open protocols and federation.
The word used was "open", and you wouldn't be able to force a company to open itself to intellectual theft at the hands of a foreign government. You're reducing a complex legal/rights policy into "wats the problem just do it guys" mentality. You can't even get rights to index something niche, like the Ontario Opera archive catalogue without running into several unions and trade rights representatives. To think that everyone from Google to Netflix could just do this is hilarious.
People are so often surprised when the money in an industry funds an industry group. It's especially egregious in the defense industry when people turn it into conspiracy theories saying like "this think tank is a puppet because they got money from the people with money."
Obviously a bake sale and all the members of the think tank have to work gig economy jobs in-between research, writing and speeches just to keep the lights on in a dinky little conference room of the sub-sub-sub basement of the Pentagon they rent out.
Perks of the job mainly consist of being able to sporadically say “Gentlemen. You can’t fight in here. This is the War Room!” and having critics in the mainstream media that hate your guts and will—uncompensated!—drop your name on a frequent basis and imply you are much much much more important and influential than you actually are.
EFF always struck me as a more specialized version of the ACLU (for internet and digital privacy). I think they are pro-tech in the sense that tech can empower people and they are sensitive to the ways that the government and various actors attempt to turn that value proposition upside-down and subvert people's rights and quality of life.
At this point I don't trust self-owned status pages at all - those crowd-sourced ones where users report issues are much faster to respond to outages that may never even go reported by status pages.
We can use the same argument for any other cloud password manager.
If google/Apple blocks my access, well it’s those services I am trying to log into in the first place so the point is moot.
Also I have recovery keys for the more important accounts printed and stored in a safe box.
I used keePass before LastPass, but the issue was with keeping the file synced. I had it in Dropbox and I was able to open it no problem from the phone, but making updates from phone was a challenge. Maybe I was not using a good app but it was a hassle to keep it synchronized.
But anyway, somebody could cut off your access to Dropbox, but it’s less of an issues since you have a backup.
I simply don’t sync my vault. I don’t add or change passwords very often, so I treat the vault in my computer as a “main copy” and once a week, during my backup routine, I copy the current vault to my phone. Never had an issue.
We do try to space them out a bit, to avoid too much repetition, but anything up to once a year is fine. This one hasn't had a thread since 2017, so completely ok.
I get some pretty wild output from symbols in general. For example try something like "@#$_*" and it's hard to recognize anything, especially run-to-run. Very neat app in any case, but I will admit I'm a bit memorized by what happens to symbols.
There are many other products especially privacy focused, ente.io[1], PhotoPrism[2] that look interesting but as of this writing they can't touch Google Photos in many respects, which is why my wife and other family members still use it heavily. It's probably the only reason I'm still holding on to my google account.
If I politicaly dissent from the majority (whomsoever that is or whatever they believe) what stops them—the government as often described—from stopping UBI from those that are deemed "unfit."