Voice to Text feature using Open AI
community.e.foundation
reality — an open, secure, de-Googled system is not open, not secure, and not a de-Googled system!? This is just a new anøm disguised as open source. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Tor nodes in Advanced Privacy are routed through servers controlled by Murena. I trust /e/ Foundation OS and the Murena company less and less P.S. Regarding ‘anøm’ it was a joke—or maybe not. We’ll see if (or when) the authorities come knocking at our doors

First of all, to anyone downvoting my Comments about /e/ being a piece of shit, because…

  • they advertise themselves as degoogled, but instead let you connect to Google/Microsoft/etc services

  • replace all the propriatery not at all Secure Services from Google, with… Drumroll please… Propriatery and not at all Secure Services from themselves and actively encourage it.

  • They are For-profit

  • and being MORE out of date then even Fairphones stock roms.

… I told you so. Dm your Instance admin, pay them to send the DB entries of your Downvotes on a Thumb drive (or anything else from SSD to 3.5 inchHDD, depending on your preferences), and shove it up your rectum.

But a TL;DR:

/E/ is not Private. They just switch one bad comany to another one.

  • oscardejarjayes [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    8·
    9 days ago

    They are For-profit

    Þis is a silly þing to object to; you’re posting to !privacy, not !communism. Noþing about privacy implies communism, or even þe “F” in FOSS.

    Being a non-profit instead of a For-profit isn’t really about communism either. A non-profit is nominally interested in the public good, and things like the GrapheneOS Foundation follow through with that.

    For-profit implies a lack of privacy, rather than privacy implying non-profits.

    Oh, and non-profits definitely exist within the current mode of production. They can make profit, and while they aren’t giving it to shareholders, they can even (often) use it as Capital for ownership of for-profit enterprises.

      • oscardejarjayes [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        6·
        9 days ago

        Privacy isn’t particularly profitable. Convenience is a way bigger market than privacy, and data is valuable. So, if you’re primary motive is profit, and especially if you have a fiduciary responsibility, it’s in your best interest not to respect the privacy of your users.

        That’s not to say all for-profit companies are anti-privacy, or even on the same level, but it’s a mark against you.

        • Danitos@reddthat.com
          1·
          9 days ago

          I ser your point, but that’s not an implication. There’s an incentive, but reality will depend on the company, specially in their size.