This is not good for Linux, below the OS Security from Intel

[arochester]

What is this paranoia about keeping things secret?

Security of computers.
Security of OS.
Security of Internet.
Security of Social Media.
Security of...
etc

Much of this stuff for John Doe (or for Joe Soap, as we say in the UK) is purely hypothetical.

I might be impressed if someone said, and could prove, "My greatest life secrets have been stolen by Microsoft. Intel, Nvidia, AMD, Facebook, Twitter, TikTok etc." I've never seen any evidence of that. (Not just targeting adverts!)

TL;DR I dislike this type of discussion. It is not based on real, actual, meaningful facts. Where is it going?

Leave it open or lock it. I'm uncommitted.

 

[Fanboi]

What is this paranoia about keeping things secret?

Security of computers.
Security of OS.
Security of Internet.
Security of Social Media.
Security of...
etc

Much of this stuff for John Doe (or for Joe Soap, as we say in the UK) is purely hypothetical.

I might be impressed if someone said, and could prove, "My greatest life secrets have been stolen by Microsoft. Intel, Nvidia, AMD, Facebook, Twitter, TikTok etc." I've never seen any evidence of that. (Not just targeting adverts!)

TL;DR I dislike this type of discussion. It is not based on real, actual, meaningful facts. Where is it going?

Leave it open or lock it. I'm uncommitted.

I know I'm "tapping the glass" but I say this without bias (and with some self-criticism):

To start, let's be fair about this thread: the premise of this thread was how new technology may hinder Linux users (or any OS) from continued use of the platform.
Only after that, did a meta discussion among some users occur about privacy
So privacy is not what "this discussion" -- that's the thread, contextually -- is about. I will admit that I, and the others involved, did contribute to and start this digression and that that action is questionable (see below)


So far as what the "paranoia" is about, it's not paranoia. The meta-discussion is about ethics in regards to privacy, which naturally includes citations of actual real, existing threat vectors, and yes, hypotheses about future possibilities. That's hardly the same thing. Not wanting to be a part of an ecosystem that has disagreeable practices is not the same as being paranoid (which is an unrealistic fear -- which this is not). And most of the discussion involved facts. I'd say the conclusions were reasonable, although mildly exagerrated (not beyond what is realistically possible, but that's an entire separate discussion, one I actually deleted the beginnings of from this post).
Now using words like "scary", "worrying", I suppose does escalate how others would read things, so I'll own that, lol.

Answering the question from @wizardfromoz (albeit posed to the mod team and not myself), or at least to offer my input: I see a perfectly valid reason if you'd want to shutdown or delete this thread, since it has gone off topic and digressed into a related, but not relevant tangent -- which could easily be seen as "threadjacking". I do apologise for my part in that. I think we all got a little carried away (I know I tend to, I just can't help myself).

Cheers,
James

 

[KGIII]

I'll ask @KGIII and @arochester for their input, methinks.

This thread is pretty much a dumpster fire from the start.

 

[wizardfromoz]

I'm locking the thread for now.

Avagudweegend

Wiz