the security models designed into operating systems never considered networked systems
The security model was aimed at putting the user in control of the software they run. That's what general-purpose computing is: allowing the user to use the machine's resources for whatever general purpose they intend. The only protection required was to make sure the user couldn't interfere with other users on the same system.
What was never considered before is adversarial software. The model we're now operating under is that users are no longer in control of the software they run. That is the primary thing that has changed; not the users, not the network, but the provenance and accountability of software.
Such content includes anything using the word cisgender, posting pictures of Herr Musk from before their gender reaffirmment surgery, and referring to the Grand Pedophile in Chief in a non-brownnosing manner, I presume.
It's as if many of you have never really understood the concept behind separation of powers. There is a very clear reason why the branches of government are constructed in partial opposition to each other, and the validity of that reason is readily demonstrated every day. Who cares if one branch of the government doesn't want to fund a particular story or slant: another branch should be happy to write that check to provide a counterbalance.
It's not about assumptions, it's rationalization. The tribal playbook requires one to demonize the enemy in order to justify what they want to do to them.
he gave it a try, abandoned it, and publicly denounced it after it didn't work
I'm not sure why that should be lauded. A sample size of 1 (and a trial length of merely 1 month, according to other posts) does not make a convincing study to warrant any public statements.
When there is no science behind it and you've been convinced by a bunch of charlatans hoping to make a quick buck off of taking advantage of the fear of their victims, there's not really a need to turn your experience into a study.
It's a matter of realizing you're being taken advantage of and speaking out about the experience.
If you use app A and that app is scanned for "malicious" content then I will message you on app B where there is no such scanning. If you don't want to use app B then I guess we can't be friends.
I mean at some point you need to make some choices.
But the beauty is that if anyone wants to talk through app A exclusively and their contacts are happy to respond on the same platform, then they can do that.
What are you expecting in terms of "broad and public resistance"?
At the very least, a general strike. That's absolutely the bare minimum that should be expected of the 94% of US citizens that do not support this regime (as is the claim upthread).
Not parent, but while I agree with you, I have very little faith (virtually none) in that happening. Most people are in a week-to-week or month-to-month financial situation; so, even if the desire & political will were to manifest, most people literally can't afford to strike.
The security model was aimed at putting the user in control of the software they run. That's what general-purpose computing is: allowing the user to use the machine's resources for whatever general purpose they intend. The only protection required was to make sure the user couldn't interfere with other users on the same system.
What was never considered before is adversarial software. The model we're now operating under is that users are no longer in control of the software they run. That is the primary thing that has changed; not the users, not the network, but the provenance and accountability of software.
reply