Jamie

I always just figure these sorts of claims are done with a wink and a nod as a sort of traditional joke.

Camera technology may have progressed to insanely high quality, but any picture of Nessie or Bigfoot will always be taken with a potato.

https://youtu.be/1Jwo5qc78QU?si=72Z4ZIM2N5BZydGM

No, copyright systems really are just that stupid if they want to avoid liability.

~~Someone could potentially decide to post something like that in a memes community to cause trouble, which would be worrying for a self-hoster like me. My instance isn't subscribed to anything remotely sketchy, so it sounds like I'm unaffected here, but it could happen.~~

Ignore the previous, that's literally what they did. I went in and manually purged it from the command line by removing every image from the last 24 hours. For other lemmy admins wanting to do the same (assuming a standard docker setup): sudo find /srv/lemmy/example.com/volumes/pictrs/files -type f -ctime -1 -exec shred {} \;

I mostly do it because I've worked in jobs where my locations were graded on such ratings, and anything less than a 5 was unacceptable. So entering junk 5/5 ratings is my small protest against that without messing up someone's job in the process.

No, it's just doing whatever it does by default for that. Being the only user does take away an element of anonymity, but I don't think it's to an unacceptable level. Sure, they might have a good idea of what I like to search, but they don't know what links I'm clicking on or interacting with, and I'm not seeing any ads from the searches. So I'm a totally useless data point in that regard.

They're already wiping inactive google accounts and all related content. It's going to be problematic for old videos where the owners haven't used the account in some time.

I have a friend that passed away past the limit, I'm going to need to make sure to archive all of his stuff or else it'll all fall into the youtube void.

My policy for giving ratings is that I don't typically rate products, but if I'm asked to rate service, I always rate 5 stars regardless of the quality of service performed. If it asks me to justify why I rated that way, I just write "Yes." and pad it with as many characters as is needed. Usually dots or problematic unicode characters.

I run my own personal instance on a server, nobody else is really using it.

Only in the past handful of years was it no longer made illegal to sneeze in public here in Texas.

It was an old holdover law from when sneezing might spook someone's horse. Not enforced for obvious reasons, though.

I like some of the ideas they have going, but I'll be sticking to my searxng instance.

I disagree. Consider the average internet user and how much they willingly give up about themselves online. Most of them use social media and have everyone they've ever met added on it, they post directly about what they're doing and often who they're doing it with, and they lend their engagement at things they like. They use Google for a search engine and don't block ads.

So really, for the probably 80-90%+ of the population that captures, the massive surveillance network in place just at that level is perfectly sufficient to gleam anything they might want to know. Even if someone does protect their privacy, people they're connected with still influence their profile through their lack of concern for privacy.

So really, with all that in place, what's the incentive to have a top secret voice surveillance system built on top of all that? It would destroy the market for any phone doing it if it was ever proven. Why take that risk when you can get everything you want from all those other sources instead?

Nah, I don't typically run a VPN.