I don't think he's arguing that, and I don't think you believe that either. Doubt any of us would consider that content ethical, but what he's saying is it's not nearly the same as actually doing harm (as opposed what you said in your original post).

You implying that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow into those awful things is extremely poor taste. I'd expect so much more on Lemmy, that is a Reddit/Facebook level debate tactic. I guess I'm going to get accused of that too now?

I don't like to give any of your posts any credit here, but I can somewhat see the normalization argument. However, where is the line drawn regarding other content that could be harmful because normalized. What about adult non consensual type porn, violence on TV and video games, etc. Sliding scale and everyone might draw the line somewhere else. There's good reason why thinking about an awful things (or writing, drawing, creating fiction about it) is not the same as doing an awful thing.

I doubt you'll think much of this, but please really try to be better. It's 2024, time to let calling anyone you disagree with a pedo back on facebook in the 90s.

Also, what will that look like 10 years from now when "popular app of 2024" is dead and gone, and new thing has no reason to build an app for a 10 year old car. Theres a reason why people like these mirroring systems to much, let the device that is likely to be replaced every 2 or so years and get regular updates handle the software.

I'm agreeing with you maybe I'm just misreading the tone of your reply haha.

Me too, really do not understand this on Lemmy of all places. It isn't and never has been outside of people still school age been about the color of the bubble. I truly want to understand this to the point I'm going to start asking anyone who posts this personally the following:

Do you A) really think that the following are not at all important to people:

• Read receipts
• Typing indicators
• Reactions
• Transferring photos/videos in a way that doesn't look they were shot on an early 90s camera phone
• Potential E2EE *(Potential because my points are not necessarily specific to Beeper Mini and iMessage, but also relevant to the conversation around Apple supporting RCS and the unknowns about how that will work)

B) Not aware of these things or any of the differences between iMessage, SMS, RCS, etc and truly believe the only difference is the bubble color? C) Is this just a smug reaction to the possibility that one of these App work arounds work iMessage will no longer be as exclusive if they were to succeed, and trying to reduce down the desires of those who would use it (and also the desires of Apple users who want these benefits with everyone regardless of who manufactured their phone)

@Usernameblankface@lemmy.world I'd be curious to know which phone platform you use?

I'll repeat it ad naseum, but of course it's not about the color of the bubble. I don't know how this keeps getting repeated, are people really that tech illiterate on Lemmy of all places? People who care about privacy want this for sure, not to mention anyone who wants to send pics or video in a reasonable quality or not be part of subpar group chats.

It literally could mean the difference of not having to use an iPhone for someone who really cares about E2EE messaging and has mostly iPhone contacts. And inbefore "but you could use WhatsApp or Signal, etc", well yes you can but it's only as useful as the amount of people in your contacts who also you it. I really do personally wish Signal gained more steam, but so few use it it's pretty much useless.

And also https://www.watch-id.com/ for watches

Regular watches - been wearing watches of some kind since middle school, and at this point I feel undressed or like something is missing without anything on my wrist. Like many others here, while I love the tech of smartphones (and admittedly the smart watches are really cool) but don't want an even more in-my-face screen to further pull me into more phone time. Trying to really cut back on screen time. Also, if I went for a smart watch, I'd feel the want to wear it all the time both because of how much they are and to keep activity tracking data consistent, which would mean my collection of watches would likely get much less wear time.

Watch I have on now is the Citizen Eco-drive I got when I graduated college, years of service and frequent wear in situations I had no business wearing it and it's held up great. Because of the eco-drive it's one of my few watches I don't have to worry about, it just always has the right time.

Definitely prefer a real book, of course a ton of convenience to be gained by the various ebook readers. One thing I'll say I have a very hard preference for though is at least an e-ink screen when reading on a digital device. Spend enough time on backlit screens, way nicer when I can't have a physical book to have e-ink and regular lighting.

Very cool, looks like you've been practicing a Latte!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GRSbr0EYYU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbJrIeEjtaY

Both always good for a good laugh!

I think the issue is with what is implied by the headline as well as the context of being posted on a privacy community. I as well as many others probably ready that headline assuming the police somehow had access to that data from the app outside of the person's phone. I know that also makes some assumptions, but probably the ones most people on a privacy community are thinking/making. Most of us would be assuming that if the app was sharing this data with police, or the police had some back door way of accessing it, then this would be a big privacy news item. The fact that they viewed the data on an unlocked phone and app is much less a privacy concern, more of a policy concern that they are allowed and able to do that (admittedly, still privacy related but to me this is like 80% policy concern and 20% privacy related). Also what actually happened is pretty different from what the headline on a privacy community implies which is where people are having issue. Some examples of this to make it even more clear...

• Statement: Facebook post "My aunt got her covid vaccine and died within 24 hours! Don't trust these vaccines!"
• Implication: The covid vaccine killed her.
• Reality: She was in a car accident on the way home.

The statement isn't technically false. The first sentence is true, the second sentence can absolutely be the opinion of the poster. But the combination implies that she died from the vaccine, something totally different from what actually happened.

• Statement: c/Privacy post "Police use OneNote information to convict murder suspect!"
• Implication: Moreso because of being on a privacy community, most would read this as police somehow having access to OneNote data either through sharing or backdoor.
• Reality: Suspect had a print out of their shopping list made in OneNote consisting of a shovel, ducktape, bleach etc and coordinates of a remote spot where body was found laying on their desk at home.

If it was posted to a non privacy related community, the assumption that there was a privacy concern may be much less, but I think the headline would still be misleading. In the facebook example the person was misrepresenting what happened to push a political agenda that vaccines are bad. In both the murder example and in the article linked in your post, the headline is trying to misrepresent what happened to increase engagement.

There are very clear reasons why the headlines weren't the following:

• British police use data found on unlocked phone to investigate miscarriage. (Still concerning for reasons of morality and policy, but probably not going to get tons of attention on a privacy community)\
• RIP my aunt who died in a car crash on her way home after getting the covid vaccine.
• Police convict murderer found with evidence of crime on suspect's desk. (Yes, I realize the list isn't "evidence" per say, but you see what I mean. This post would not get any attention either.)

Since this got really long, it's important to say I was just trying to show how the headline is misrepresentation of what happened. I don't think you posted it with any ill intention or that there aren't other moral and political issues with what is happening.

The assumed connection between advertising and privacy. While they are often related, there are situations where they can be different concerns. Two very common lines of reasoning I see a lot:

• Regarding Brave - that is is just an advertising company so shouldn't be considered for privacy - without getting into a whole debate about Brave, I think advertising can (and used to for many years) be done in a way that doesn't harm privacy. And while many privacy advocates may be 100% against advertising of any kind, I think there are some people out there that care a lot about the privacy but not as much against any ad of any kind. The idea of a model that respects privacy but allows for advertising supported free content is at very least interesting to me.

• The assumption that Apple's growing advertising business must mean declines in privacy coming. While they certainly could lead to that, I don't think that is a given. There are several areas (specifically areas where already browsing 3rd party items such as apps or businesses) where contextual ads could be effective without harming privacy at all. Not saying I approve at all of these advertising moves on what are sold as premium devices, just that the assumed decrease in privacy is assuming a lot.

My point is only that these can and potentially should be looked at as separate issues. I'm not ignoring that there is a conflict of interest created where a company like Brave could go back on privacy features to improve the advertising features or that Apple does the same for their advertising money, but I think it's a bit of a miss to assume the worst possible outcome in these and other scenarios.