• iAmTheTot@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    413
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nah. If you want to be outraged at Google, at least be correct.

    This has to do with Google “collections”, not synced bookmarks. Afaik, collections are a thing you only access on mobile through the google app, this doesn’t even have anything to do with Chrome.

    If you run chrome on mobile, for example, you don’t have access to the collections. It’s only through the google app.

    Almost certain they monitor collections because they can be shared with public.

    • kattenluik@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      90
      ·
      1 year ago

      They shouldn’t be monitored either way in my opinion as it’s just a bunch of links, but especially not while still private.

      Ultimately I don’t think it quite matters if it technically is bookmarks or “collections”, they seem clearly used in the same manner in this case.

      • iAmTheTot@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        104
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t care if you’re mad about it like I said. I just care about accuracy. The person in the screenshot and this thread’s title are both inaccurate.

        • kattenluik@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          I didn’t ever indicate I was mad, I simply stated my opinion. We already know it is inaccurate as you shared this in your original comment.

      • blendertom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        41
        ·
        1 year ago

        They aren’t. They are made from links that appear in Google search results. Google is notifying the person that the link you’ve saved is being removed. Therefore it will be removed from your collection as well.

      • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Eh… the ultimate question, what if it’s a collection of CSAM links?

        Some moderation is fine, especially when it can be shared pretty easily. This isn’t private bookmarks, it’s “private” bookmark collections.

        Edit: For those downvoting, this is the same concept as a private Reddit/facebook community. Just because it’s “invite only” doesn’t mean it’s free from following the rules of the whole site.

        • Ret2libsanity@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          52
          ·
          1 year ago

          CSAM is never an excuse to violate everyone’s privacy.

          I hate seeing people implying that it is. It’s no better then Patriot Act B.s that took away privacy in the name of catching terrorists.

          • Dojan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            1 year ago

            This once more reminds me of the guy in Sweden who got assaulted by police, in his bed, because an American institution searched through his Yahoo mail and found pictures and videos of him and his 30 year old boyfriend and incorrectly flagged it as CSAM, and then forwarded it to Swedish authorities.

            There was no justice after that. No repercussions for either the Swedish police or the American government, and no damages paid to the guy.

            Could this sort of surveillance stop abuse of minors? Yeah absolutely, but at what cost?

              • Dojan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah, absolutely. That’s literally what I said. In fact CSAM should come bundled on every single electronic device. Then it won’t be a problem anymore.

                Of course not. My comment was in response to the discussion about companies going through private emails and the like (which I recognise the original post isn’t about, but that’s what this conversation turned into) and how I take issue with that. You might argue that we have no right to privacy when we use products like gmail and whatnot, which would be a fair argument if they didn’t already dominate the market.

          • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            When those links are hosted on Google servers, publicly available to anyone handed the link to them?… how is that a private space?

            This isn’t reaching into your phone and checking the information you store on it, this is checking links you added and shared with others using their service. They absolutely have the right to check them.

          • Piecemakers@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The fact that you think “privacy” existed even then is telling. The only thing that changed in that regard with the so-called Patriot BS is whether the gov’t could do it without the guile that otherwise had been SoP for decades. 🤦🏼‍♂️

          • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Private has various meanings in various contexts. If I take you to the private booth at a club, does it mean I’m allowed to slap around the waiter? No, of course not because rules still apply in private places hosted by a third party.

            If you want privacy in the context you explicitly mean, you shouldn’t be using anyone else’s hardware to begin with. If you expect any third party company to be fine with posting anything on them, you’re gonna have a bad time.

            For example, how many lemmy instances are fine with you direct linking to piracy torrents?

            • ddnomad@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’d not expect the private booth to have the club’s employee sitting there and waiting for me to do something that is against the rules preemptively.

              We mostly argue about semantics, but in this instance you are trying to excuse some very questionable behaviour by companies by saying something along the lines of “well you better go and live in a forest then”. And I don’t think that’s a good take.

              For example, how many Lemmy instances are fine with you direct linking to piracy torrents?

              Irrelevant, as all content on Lemmy is public in a proper sense of this word.

              • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Irrelevant, as all content on Lemmy is public in a proper sense of this word.

                /sigh

                How many file hosting services let you share pirated data, publicly?

                Before you start in on “it’s not the same” it absolutely is. It’s private data, which is being shared through a link publicly. Just like bookmark collections.

                And once that file has been identified as piracy, it is very often fingerprinted and blacklisted from not only that instance, but all instances past, present and future.

                That’s essentially what is going on here.

                • ddnomad@infosec.pub
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Scary illigal content here

                  I guess we test and see whether I get banned.

                  Also, it’s not the same. A link to a website is not “pirated content”. A link to a website in a “collection” not shared with anybody is not publicly available pirated content.

                  Why would Google preemptively ban a set of characters that does not constitute a slur and is perfectly legal to exist?

    • GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      56
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m getting really sick at the amount of misinformation that gets spread here. There’s plenty of stuff to hate Google without making shit up, and resorting to misleading titles.

      • Black_Gulaman@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Beats me, I only use chrome if firefox cannot display the site correctly. And it’s a case to case basis at that, it has to be that I really really need to access that site.

        Also i rarely use the Google apps that came with my phone. The most probably used one is Maps.

        Edit : so yeah, I forgot. I’m on Android. There’s that, no escaping from them on my part. I can’t be bothered with using and installing my own phone OS.

        • Link.wav [he/him]@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m with you. I’ve disabled some of the more intrusive system apps and Google apps, but there’s no replacement for Maps atm. The best I’ve found is OsmAnd, but it is unusable for me because there’s no way to track movement while observing the convention of north = up.

      • liquidparasyte@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Basically the Google equivalent of Pocket Reader; saves a whole bunch of links from Google News/Articles for you, Google search, and general web links. It’s not the same as your Chrome bookmarks (though at one point they were considering merging them until everyone hated it).

        • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ok, I just checked. My collections consist almost entirely of saved maps locations of which restaurants and tourist places I want to visit. Interesting.

    • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      Crazy that I had to scroll past 9 other comments to reach this one. Maybe I oughta start sorting comments by top.

    • bassomitron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      72
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s really that simple for much of their products. I really don’t understand why people still insist on using chrome, in particular. Google is a horrible company that would literally sell you into slavery if it was legal and they thought it’d boost their ad business somehow.

      • Sabre363@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        1 year ago

        Part of the problem is that Google has an entire ecosystem that is ridiculously useful and is designed to hook people and keep them around. And once they’re hooked it’s really hard to move away from, even if it’s in their best interest.

        • Dettweiler@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          1 year ago

          Unfortunately, parts of that ecosystem start deteriorating as they slowly abandon the product, until it reaches a point of being borderline useless. Then, they just deactivate it with little to no warning. Sometimes they just shut things down even if they’re popular (such as Google Poly).

          For example, their line of home security cameras are getting worse in quality and usefulness. I feel like it’s only a matter of time until the Nest service shuts down.

          • Captainvaqina@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t think Google will shut down nest anytime soon. They gather very useful telemetry about their “customers” and use that data to train models, and ah-hoc send your front door video to law enforcement whenever they want it.

            • Dettweiler@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Perhaps, but there is absolutely no development or bug fixing happening on their software. There hasn’t been a software update in years, and the hardware has been a crapshoot for just as long.

        • Clent@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          Everyone says Apple’s walled garden is a problem.

          Google built something far more insidious. higher walls but glass, no garden just a swamp of ads.

          • Sabre363@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They are all part of the same walled shit hole disguised in a veneer of shiny new products and empty promises.

            • Clent@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sure. It’s just funny to watch people pick Google because Apple is bad.

              At least Apple isn’t selling every price of your data to advertisers.

              Apple hatred is mostly people who have never used it.

              Everyone has used Google.

              Google is inarguably worse but people get religious about it. As long as they can think of one thing Google does better, they will justify the abuse.

              Sort of like republican voters.

              • Sabre363@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Apple is almost certainly selling your data, perhaps not to same extent as Google, but personal data is literally these companies biggest commodity.

                • Clent@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yep. That’s the justification I was talking about.

                  People have a blindness to Apple so they let Google take their data.

  • SaltyIceteaMaker@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    143
    ·
    1 year ago

    Google keeps taking L’s and firefox keeps taking W’s. If they keep going maybe firefox will be most used browser again

      • Localhorst86@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        A few days ago, a friend asked me what browser I was using, a question he asked me in a genuine manner of getting my opinion. When I asnwered that I was using Firefox, he - again, what seemed to be genuine - wanted to know why. Knowing that he likes to use adblockers, I then told him about Google’s recent attempts of attacking an open web, specificly mentioning ManifestV3 and WEI API and how they are a potential threat to his use of adblockers.

        “Well, I use ublock origin on chrome and it still works, so I’ll keep using that.”

        Apparently, I am not convincing enough.

      • baked_tea@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Unless they sort out their funding (find someone that is not Google for majority of their money), people shouldn’t care.

        • Link.wav [he/him]@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t understand. You think people shouldn’t care about privacy? You think people shouldn’t care about one or two massive corporations having complete control over the internet?

          Explain.

          • Event_Horizon@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think his point is that as long as Google is the primary funding source for Mozilla it’s not worth relying on Firefox because there’s always the risk Google will demand Mozilla capitulates and tows the line. Once/If Mozilla secure independent funding then they can be ‘trusted’

            • Link.wav [he/him]@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              1 year ago

              Oh, I see. For some reason, I thought they were referring to content creators and others who profit from Google ads or something like that.

              And yeah, there’s a lot that Mozilla’s corporate branch needs to sort out, but Firefox and its forks are the only viable alternatives to chromium browsers right now, so people should still care about that.

              “Perfection is the enemy of progress” … or something like that

            • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Mozilla cannot be unplugged on demand. That would cause Google to become a monopoly, and they would be held to extreme harsh laws by the EU. Like in the case of IE6 back in the day.

              Google does not want that, so they donate to Mozilla to keep Firefox as a competitor. And Firefox has to do jack shit in return other than exist.

              The only way Firefox could be unplugged is if a new non-chromium browser becomes one of the big browsers.

              • baked_tea@discuss.online
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                This is all technically correct. Although I think it’s a little naive to say that a corporation “cannot” do something today. There are lots of things they technically cannot do yet it happens on daily basis.

    • June@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      I hate that I have to keep chrome on my machine because some sites I visit don’t work well, or at all, on Firefox.

      • Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve heard a lot of people mention this recently and I must live a charmed life because I’ve never had this happen. There was I think maybe, once where I was having a problem with a site and it said that I needed to use a browser like chrome so I begrudgingly did and it still didn’t work so I don’t count that as an example and other than that, I’ve just never seen it. In fact I’m pretty sure it’s not since about 2001 that I’ve seen any website give me shit with only working on certain browsers and that was sites designed to work on IE6 or something.

        • June@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just had it happen yesterday with the the students loan simulator. It wouldn’t work on Firefox and kept getting hung and freezing. Opened it in chrome and it worked perfectly first time.

          It’s not common, but enough that I keep chrome installed for now.

        • devfuuu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          When someone sends me links to instagram on my phone, firefox mobile can’t play the thing, I’m forced to open the link in chrome to watch the video. There are lots and lots of websites and webapps that don’t work or barely open on firefox. I’m forced to regularly open every week a few links on chrome/chromium on my computer as well. Although the amount as reduced a lot, some years ago it was worse.

        • tehmics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’ve used several sites that just won’t scroll in Firefox. Coursera is awful for this and a lot of job sites seem to use the same library because they have the exact same issue

        • magz :3
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          both are still just chromium and as such still subject to google’s bullshittery like amp, manifest v3 and web integrity

        • June@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s still chromium based, which I’m trying to get away from as much as possible.

    • aceshigh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      and here i am stuck using chrome, firefox doesn’t install properly. i’ve tried a bunch of times. i have a chromebook.

        • hackris@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Syncthing just… syncs things. Say you have a folder that you want to automatically get synced between devices, syncthing is exactly for this.

          If you want something like Google Drive, you can run Nextcloud, which is like a self hosted Google Drive, but more powerful. You upload files, which get saved to the server, not just synced between devices. Then you can also sync them, sync calendars, news (RSS feeds), edit documents in it (assuming you install the correct extension), and a lot more things.

          • boatswain@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            That sounds pretty much just like SyncThing. Is the only difference that Nextcloud requires a server, rather than being decentralized?

            • hackris@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yep, it’s centralized. However, it offers more functionality than just syncing stuff. If you only want to sync files, syncthing is the simpler, more lightweight solution :)

            • filcuk@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Nextcloud includes OpenOffice integration, like Google Docs, and loads of plugins, such as kanban project management, notes like Keep, galleries, etc. Very much unlike Syncthing, both are useful for slightly different things.

              • boatswain@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Ah gotcha; so with NextCloud I could have multiple people editing an OpenOffice file simultaneously, like Google docs? That’s interesting, though not a use case that generally applies to me.

                • filcuk@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Correct. I think it’s unnecessarily complex to setup and maintain if you only need to store files.

      • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I see NextCloud being talked about everywhere. I checked their website but still can’t figure out a use case for personnal use.

        What do you use it for?

        • Kushan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s basically Google drive or Dropbox but hosted yourself on your own server. It’s an effort to set up and maintain but means it’s entirely in your control.

        • discusseded@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s a file sync platform. Say you have files you want to access from your desktop, you install next cloud and place the files there. They sync up with the next cloud server, presumably your NAS.

          Now let’s say you want to access those files from another machine. It could be a laptop, an Android phone, your friends, whatever. You just need to install the client and login, and there your files are, ready to sync to the new device.

          Great use case would be syncing your computers user folders, such as my documents, desktop, etc. If you have to wipe your computer and start over, at least those items are preserved and easy to restore.

          Otherwise sharing files with other machines in general is the main use.

            • AntEater@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              It is much, much easier to setup than syncthing, uses a decent GUI interface that works well with Linux, Mac, Win, iOS & Android. Lots of additional features beyond file sync/sharing.

            • epyon22@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Much more in depth UI similar to Google drive kind of UI. Has a bunch of plugins to do other things too. Bookmarks being one of them. I personally use both they have similar syncing functions but work differently. Syncthing is nice for data just being on multiple devices where nextcloud is nice to have a UI and web site to go to anywhere. Nextcloud get the spousal approval much easier too.

          • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’ve been looking for a FOSS replacement for One drive, it seems like this is it. It seems great, I will definitely install it on my homelab then.

            Thanks for the detailed description.

        • nl_the_shadow@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I use it as a backup location for pictures and videos I make with my phone and for bookmark storage. But you can use it to fully replace cloud services like OneDrive, GCloud or iCloud.

      • Knusper@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nah, the CEO reports to the non-profit Mozilla Foundation, so just swapping the CEO will not impact their overall goals.

        Besides, Firefox end-to-end-encrypts synced data. They’d have to rip out a ton of solid engineering to know what you bookmark.

  • gndagreborn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    97
    ·
    1 year ago

    Are you fucking shitting me rn? I am sick of how lame this dystopian future is. Where are my neon lights and grungy underground bars? All we get in this timeline are takedown notices, corporate overreach, disappearing content and DMCA strikes.

  • traveler@lemdro.id
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    1 year ago

    Jesus just stop using Google. I registered my own domains (in plural yes) and nowadays I’m using them with iCloud, but I could easily change my entire emails from provider with a simple dns change.

    For browser I advise using Firefox, but if you don’t like its performance Brave it’s also a good choice. (Though both have some shit going on behind curtains still far better than Google).

    For password management just use either Bitwarden, Proton Pass or 1Password. It’s easy not to use Google to store your data, there’s a lot of competitors for what they do.

    • martreides@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Don’t use Brave, it is a mess and sketchy as hell. They have been selling copyrighted material and even injected their own affiliate link when users browsed to Binance.

      I do agree with the other parts! It is not that difficult to move away from Google!

      • traveler@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Modified with loads of privacy features. Just putting the suggestion out there since some people have trouble with Firefox in some sites.

        • maeries@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          1 year ago

          Still gives google a lot of power to decide how the web will function in the future. That some websites don’t work in Firefox is a symptom of exactly that problem

          • traveler@lemdro.id
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            I never understood why these browsers never choose Firefox as a base to their new browsers… Technically you should be able no?

            • liquidparasyte@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s something about how the Gecko engine is built IIRC. I don’t get all the details but TLDR Chromium is a lot easier to abstract into other programs as a plugin and engine and Gecko is harder.

        • Link.wav [he/him]@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          “Some sites give people trouble with Firefox” is more like it. Spoof the user-agent header, and those sites that “work better with Chrome” suddenly work just fine.

        • sip@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          the trouble isn’t with Firefox, it’s with those sites and the developers of that site that can’t be botheted to do it properly and cross-browser - it’s still a thing and a sane requirement.

          • traveler@lemdro.id
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean with Safari I can understand since Apple can’t be bothered to make a decent engine with all the web standards. But Firefox has all of that so they’re just plain retarded.

      • traveler@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I use my own domains for email. So basically I can just use whatever mail service that supports custom domains. iCloud Plus, Proton Mail and Tutanota all support it. If I’m done with iCloud I can just switch away from it by changing DNS settings…

        Yeah I also use KeePass.

      • Gyoza Power@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s as simple as buying them (mind you that it’s a yearly payment) on a domain platform such as Namecheap or Porkbun.

        Then using them requires some setup depending on what you use. I use mine with Protonmail + SimpleLogin and they have a good guide on how to set it up.

    • worfamerryman@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      How long until Android starts blocking access to websites.

      I really do not trust these large tech companies.

      • Asymptote@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        No no no you misunderstand

        They’re helping you avoid evil bad superungood pages that don’t have the right security levels.

        Maybe their SSH cert is for the wrong site!

        Maybe their SSH cert is just too old.

        Or maybe, heavens forbid, they dont even have an SSL cert?! Heavens to Betsy what shenanigans.

        Sometimes web pages spread malware. Sometimes they even spread copyright protected materials without the the rights to do so! Maybe we should start helping you avoid copyright infringement!

        • worfamerryman@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          My cell connection blocks some pirate sites. But I’m not using for that purpose, but the second my phone does it is the second I stop using that phone.

          • u/lukmly013 💾 (lemmy.sdf.org)@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I guess it’s just DNS level blocking. If you don’t want any blocks, switch to Cloudflare DNS. If you want a customized experience, you can create a free NextDNS account which allows for 300,000 queries/month. It also has many pre-existing blocklists for ads and trackers. You can try that out for free without signup with a temporary 7 day account, just click on “Try for free”.

            Or choose some other DNS provider.

  • Linnce@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 year ago

    People are saying this is fake, maybe that image in particular is, but I just got that email and that’s annoying me so here’s a pic

      • Linnce@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        From the collections yes, I can’t see that item there. They are just bookmarks from mobile device though, it’s been so many years I didn’t even know that was there lol.

  • lemmyingly@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    Is this an old screenshot? The email looks like a screenshot of a screenshot, of a screenshot, etc.

          • Dodecahedron December@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            23
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ok, so you are actually new to the internet. I’ll explain, human to human, human.

            A domain name like reddit.com or katcr.co is a registration someone gets for a period of time, at least 1 year but sometimes more than a year. One year, a user can purchase katcr.co and put up their personal website, because their name is Kat Crosby, and they are a company - katcr.co fits so they buy it and put up a site for a year or two. Life happens and they abandon the site. The domain becomes available again. Someone purchases katcr.co and makes a cookie business for a few years, abandoning the site. Someone else buys it later when it’s available and makes a bittorrent site out of it, runs it for a few years. the domain gets siezed and they can no longer use that domain. The katcr.co domain becomes available again. no one buys it.

            Someone said they used to go to katcr.co years ago, someone else chimes in and says “that site doesn’t exist, you’re a liar”, and then someone with more understanding of the internet sends an archive.org link.

            Why archive.org? It’s the only site that does this thing.

            What is the thing it does? It will, and has over the years visited websites and saved snapshots of it. Archiving it, if you will. You can then go to web.archive.org and enter the domain name of any site and it will send you to the link you’ve been given a few times. This link is to a page that shows all the times archive.org has captured a snapshot of that link. It allows you to view that page (usually just text, usually missing a lot of content like images and external files) as it was at that time.

            In this case, the existence of the link immediately disproves your argument.

            In other words, you’re entirely wrong. Both about katcr.co being fake because it’s currently not online, and also about me being a bot.

          • BlueBockser@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            There is nothing there, but there was. Just check Wayback Machine, for example here from 2018. Whether bot post or not, it’s entirely plausible that the screenshot is real. Bookmarks don’t magically disappear when the site they point to turns to a placeholder page.

            Edit: Wayback Machine seems to have some stability problems right now, you might have to try again if you get a connection error.