You obviously do not understand what am saying.

I don’t think you understand at all what being political actually means.

You clearly dislike this person because your and their political positions are at odds, and you seem to want to make that a priority. That is fine! I do that all the time.

I just thought it is absurd that you would think that this decision (or your argument) is not political, because it is.

I just tried to illustrate the obvious by quoting some of the many political things you’ve written before saying that what you write isn’t political.

Like… why would you think that?

So what’s preventing those people from using bookmarks as “check this out later” tool?

Bookmarking a page does not give you control over its content. So if you bookmark something and the host deletes it, you are screwed.

If you instead clip the content or save it as a PDF, you retain access regardless of the original host.

For example, I save every good article I read as a PDF, which I cloud sync to a folder. I have a second folder for stuff I don’t want to keep open as a tab but still want to read later. There are probably far better services out there, but I like the lack of technical dependencies and lock-in.

CEO is a homophobic shithead. … Privacy is important … Privacy is good … Society is toxic … calling out people who specifically want to legally control how others (harmlessly) live their lives is not itself toxic … His opinion is that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry. I think this is rather invasive. … My point is that someone who is willing to donate thousands to homophobic lobbyists doesn’t seem to care about gay people’s rights to Privacy …

And then:

I am not sharing political opinions

Brilliant.

Although I am not sure whether it is art or delusion.

Again, you’re confused.

I think your credibility would be greater if you weren’t so bad at trying to gaslight the other participants. 😄

irony is a difficult concept

What a clownish thing to say.

That doesn’t sound convincing at all. There’s just no irony in addressing privacy on YouTube.

There’s no irony in talking about press freedom in the unfree press nor is there anything ironic about a serf lamenting the socage in their Middle Ages village squares.

People converse where people are. That is trivial.

If you think that putting content on YT and pushing more people to the platform hence giving them more data while talking about protecting your data from corporations is not ironic then you simply don’t know what irony is.

It’s either that… or - and that’s possible as well - you might be wrong. There’s entire meme traditions surrounding the ridiculousness of your remark.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-somewhat

Yes, for sure, by simply connecting to the internet using my local provider and public backbone infrastructure (I’m not in US) I’m supporting corporations. Next you will tell me I’m supporting Saudi Arabia by turning light on in my bathroom.

You are getting dangerously close to understanding my reply. It was deliberately ridiculous, and is equivalent to the ridiculousness of your initial observation. Yes, there is and will be discourse around privacy on YouTube. No, it is not ironic.

I get it, I just find it ironic that people post privacy related content on a platform run by the worst company in the world privacy wise.

This website you are commenting on has been delivered to you through billions worth of corporate infrastructure. Often these companies have long track records of privacy violations and corruption, and you reproduce their power by your participation. Yet you still seem to be using the Internet.

Open source can make it easier to audit software, but we’re long past the point where we can’t audit unfree and/or closed source software. Open source is great and important, but the debate around open source regarding trust and security is often a sideshow.

If 1. all participating devices are sufficiently secure and will be sufficiently secure in the future, 2. no participating device backs up your conversations to the cloud or only does so in a sufficiently encrypted manner, and 3. no participating user leaks your information in any other way, then yes, the general expectation is that your WhatsApp chats with people are encrypted. Keep in mind that defaults, nudges, and people work against you in this long list of requirements.

Oh, and… more importantly… metadata. But that’s a separate issue. WhatsApp’s encryption claim could be entirely true, but still work against user privacy, simply because those conditions are almost never true …and also, again, meta data.

Users conscientious enough to consistently meet all of these requirements could simply use a platform deemed less hostile to user privacy, such as Matrix or Signal.