> Will we be the poorer for that, or will we be safer? I think poorer, because I hate being told what technology I can and can't use, but I'm not certain.

I think this is bang on. The motives are kind of irrelevant, because now that the precedent has been set, I suspect they'll be much more likely to go here for future restrictions. It's very convenient (even if true) to just say "security reasons".

I think you're right - it's one of the reasons I prefer a mac as a dev platform.

Honestly, Kubernetes has no moat. Give me a better, more simple alternative any day.

That's strange. Even in my hobby-toy app, I have a TOS that I bump whenever the terms meaningfully change, and in my app, it forces a re-acceptance of the new terms before using the app again.

You mean your terms don't just say "these terms may change at any time and your continued use of this site implies acceptance??"

/s

> continued use of this … implies acceptance

One of the biggest crimes in tech world

I hope you're right. I am not informed - is this typically how these decisions get challenged?

There are two ways to challenge FCC decisions. There is the upfront approach where a business whose operations are harmed by an FCC decision sues to block the decision. Then there is the approach where said business announces their non-compliance and dares the FCC to sue them. The FCC does not have criminal charging authority, so it has to rely on courts to enforce compliance. See the Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T case that just wrapped up at the Supreme Court.

Signal is on the right side here. I think it's time for us techies to fight back by developing the future. I'm trying to do my part - https://mediaden.ca

Also looking to get involved with the meshtastic project.

Looks proprietary. Need fully open source to guarantee that right long term.

I used to agree with this, but now I don't actually think I do. Apple's app privacy report can be used to guarantee network access for any iOS app - https://support.apple.com/en-us/102188

That only shows the domain eg facebook.com, not facebook.com/tracking-script. There's no reason that they can't put all the bad stuff on the same essential, first-party domain needed for the app which makes DNS blocking and viewing not effective.

That's why you can't block youtube ads with DNS, only with a browser-level adblocker because the browser adblocker is able to block the specific paths.

You can view the full encrypted traffic with something like mitmproxy, but there's ways apps can detect or prevent it.

Good to know - I hadn't considered the proxy bit.

For me, right now, I think it's conceivably a security advantage if the source isn't public. I know security by obscurity isn't a strategy alone, but with an incredibly difficult surface area to attack, I think user's using the app are very well protected, except for against nation states.

Bad guys have no problem decompiling your software with Ghidra-MCP.

A few, but the one I use regularly and am quite proud of is

https://mediaden.ca - iOS app for storing encrypted photos/videos on storage I (the user) exclusively owns, with zero servers, zero telemetry, and a host of other privacy related features.

I don't think that's a fair point at all.

Some humans do shit things to other humans.

Some humans do not, and would object to it, or do something about it if they perceived that they could.

Also, treating the world around you negatively doesn't just harm the world around you - it damages your character and your morality.

I don't disagree that humans should on whole do better, but I disagree with everything else you said.

I think that's a bit of a false dichotomy. It should be possible to live in the US and resist the surveillance state. Keep fighting.

Right, just the worst of all possible worlds. Computer generated video is going to make this mess a whole lot worse too.