Habeas corpus doesn’t prevent illegal imprisonment, it’s only a procedure to (eventually) free people after the fact. That procedure is still in place, it just takes a lot of time. Habeas corpus was used successfully to free Rümeysa Öztürk (detained for writing an op-ed). But many others are still detained because the process is slow and the DOJ is deliberately obstructing everything.
Websites do not have access to your IMEI. That’s only a concern when you use the app.
The first gamer pope 😎
Sure. For the fact that many jurisdictions outside of the US also consider freedom of speech and other human rights to apply between private parties: this is called “horizontal effect” and covered extensively in case law by e.g. the European Court of Human Rights. See also this chapter for an international comparison and this paper for a European perspective.
As for the specific rules in the EU for platforms: Article 17 of the Digital Services Act requires that users who are banned or shadowbanned from any platform are provided with specific information of what rule they broke, which they can then appeal internally or in court. Article 34 and 35 requires very large platforms (such as X) to take broad measures to protect i.a. the users’ freedom of speech.
More to the point, one person who was shadowbanned by X in a similar way used the DSA and won in court
(Edited to add the last paragraph)
*in the US.
The EU recognizes that human right such as freedom of speech also should be protected against private parties. Platforms can’t ban or restrict you for arbitrary reasons here.
I’m of the opinion that having a lot of money shouldn’t, in fact, allow you to do what you want. No person should have this power to do mass censorship, not in the last place because manipulating online discourse means manipulating a fundamental aspect of democracy.
Musk specifically is meddling in elections, both in the EU and the US by e.g. bribing voters. Turning the dials of the algorithm lets him do this even more effectively.
The phone number link means forward security isn’t possible. If ever the encryption is hacked, all your messages could be forfeit by anyone who’s simply kept the encrypted data.
Can you elaborate on that? Obviously the phone number has privacy implications, but I don’t think it can be used to decrypt messages. In the signal protocol, encryption keys are exchanged using ECDH (so wiretapping doesn’t work) and periodically rotated (so even knowing the encryption keys at a certain point doesn’t let you decrypt messages after that).
As long as it’s not an exit node, nobody will be able to tell what the traffic is. It’s all encrypted including the metadata.
Because it was never about the deficit, you dummies. It’s a convenient lie to settle personal grievances and dismantle the regulators that are going after Trump and his crime partners. https://pluralistic.net/2025/01/27/beltway-bandits/#henhouse-foxes
Did you know you can criticize people without making weird conjectures about their sex life?
I think they mean uPnP
Are you free tonight? Because I don’t have any money.
Turns out when Zuckerbot was talking about “allowing more speech on the platform”, he just meant more slurs.
How does that increase the risk compared to something like JBOD or overlayfs? In both cases you will lose data if a drive fails. Keep in mind that this is btrfs raid0, not regular raid. If anything that decreases the chance of corruption because the metadata is redundantly stored on both drives.
No mention of systemd? This is unacceptable.
A disk failure will cause you to lose data, yes. But that’s also the case in all the other solutions discussed here. Backups should be handled separately and are not part of the original question.
Have you considered simply setting btrfs to RAID 0?
You’re right of course. Habeas corpus alone isn’t enough to stop all of this, particularly against an administration that is blatantly undermining the courts.