Extreme claims require extreme evidence. The claim they have is that they were targeted directly, and signals encryption was broken (or signal elected to steal the data?)
I've never heard of these people or their "legacy chat application" that would be worthy of compromising signal. And they are trying to sell their chat application bundled on a VPN as "airgapped" from the internet.
I would love to do that but unfortunately Network effect means that a lot of creators don't upload their video anywhere else. It is unfortunately becoming the default for everything.
I paid for Vimeo and other services in the past. But I will not pay for Youtube/Google
YouTube spent about ten years convincing their users that videos will be offered with only unobtrusive banner ads or short, pre-video ads. Then once the network effects were safely locked in, they changed it to a protection racket where multiple loud, frequently offensive ads (including for scams!) will interrupt a one-minute video and new ads are triggered by so much as rewinding, but you can pay to not see them.
I'd much rather support a different platform, myself.
Who asked for Google to be the custodian of our culture? I don’t owe them rent just because they were so presumptuous to put themselves into that position.
There used to be a thriving variety of video hosting sites.
If they weren't already stealing my data, I'd gladly pay them for ad-free. My data is worth far more to me and goog won't even offer me an option to not steal it because it is worth far more to them as well.
That’s like asking a large segment of the population to stop using the Internet altogether. YouTube is basically a utility now, you can’t avoid it in many cases.
It can be useful to solve the "blank page problem" i.e. to get an initial set of data to challenge. However it has zero customer data, or internal code to help with anything like that.
You can run a webtunnel bridge behind Cloudflare. It also works behind AWS Cloudfront but that's just way too expensive if you don't get a reasonable rate from them like 99% reduction.
Welp, not surprised given it's bad for their business. Guess hence the timing of this webtunnel thing - afaik tor was using fastly at least for their snowflake thing.
No it's not. No-one has claimed it is. The parent of this whole thread is "If ever I'm the subject of a lawsuit that'd require me to turn in my computer, I'd scrub it to oblivion at the slightest intimation of what's happening."
'So if I was being sued, I'd destroy evidence.' is a great way for the court to give you the hardest of times, and potentially jail time.
