I mean, the LGB community does not have a good track record of supporting the T+ community as far as I know.
MajesticFlame
joined 2 years ago
How are they illegal? Under what law?
That sounds kinda self-sabotaging but ok. I shall comment!
I really hope the decline clearly shows before Reddits IPO. If Spqz and co. are allowed to profit from this, then the future looks bleak...
I mean, that sounds less like that they don't like it and more like it is objectively bad and working around it would make KeePass less secure...
Funny, I had keepass2droid but had issues and swapped to KeePassDX
same here, KeePassXC + syncthing on desktop and KeePassDX + syncthing on android. I also run a second syncthing instance on desktop in read only mode that makes backups to my cloud
I use Mullvad as a sort of incognito tab while using Firefox for most normal stuff. I don't think there would be any issue with using Mullvad with history, but there is not much point for services where you reveal your identity by logging in anyway unless you make sure your login is not connected to you.
Long ago? I have a normal little unify gateway, switch and AP and its already an overkill
This is definitely true. Though I am yet to see a case like this being tried in a different country and YouTubes own terms of service says any disputes will be tried in the US (I think California?). So I think YouTube may not even be able to sue in a different country even if they wanted to since they are also bound by their terms of service.
I was just returning here to say this. Yes, I am eating my words a lot sooner than I expected. I wonder how a court would rule if invidious had the resources to defend themselves but that will likely not happen. They just won't have the money to pay top notch lawyers and escalate to the supreme court.
I still think technologically speaking, invidious should be no different from a VPN/proxy, so it should be legal.
I see 43 users/month from lemmy.one