Its worth mentioning: workers would also be liable for company failure; but that actually might be one of the best parts of this idea.

See, right now you can get hired to run a company, drive it straight into the ground with stupid decisions, get paid the whole time, and then leave the now-bankrupted company with no downside for yourself. That would no longer be allowed if you were held responsible for the company at a personal level.

Wow, I really wasn’t expecting a positive response to my comment. You just made my day :D, thanks!

TLDR: When you commit a crime for an employer, you and the employer are responsible and must both receive the consequences. Even if you signed a contract saying you’re not liable – doesn’t matter; you can’t choose to be “not liable”. When you commit not-crime for an employer, the consequences (the payment/income from that work) are given entirely to the employer; they are treated as if they were 100% responsible/liable. Somehow, this time, you can separate yourself from liability with a contract.

The argument is: Either liability is totally inseparable from a person or it is totally separable. We can’t have “its inseparable but only if the person is committing a crime”.

I’m usually the one person in the Solarpunk who debates “capitalism==bad” titles. This was a solid video; I don’t think I have any critiques of the arguments. It gives me a lot to think about. The speaker does a good job at not being polarizing or sensationaliazing the topic; he simply presents the information without getting emotionally charged.

That’s in contrast to the Lemmy title, which I think is senasionalized/polarizing and a bit of an insult to the listener; telling them the conclusion they should have instead of assuming they’re smart enough to understand the consequences themselves. “Why workplace democracy is an inalienable right, and its incompatibility with capitalism” would be more appropriate title IMO.

Either way I’m glad this was posted.

I think it could be a great solution. I’ve never considered it before. That said there’s one sticking point for me:

Apportion payment to developers based on software use by paid users and the size of their contribution to that software.

That^ . That needs a lot more detail. If they provide solid details – details that most can agree on – then I will actually be on board with the solution.

Labeling datasets is costly process. When you dont opt out, you’re letting them build a labelled dataset on you-specifically for free.

Same for me: just say no, and they say OK. Effortless but the option is totally invisible.

The irony is, I’ve seen the staff stop using the face scanner for everyone halfway through the line to speed things up. So its not saving time, just costing money to increase surveillance.

Yeah, cookies, account logins, and other stuff make it hard too. Ex: randomly exploring gmail emails at different times of day, but not actually marking emails as read.

Psychology. Ever see ring doorbell footage where the owner says “drop the package” and people do? Its not like the owner could do anything, but for some reason it makes people behave differently.

Here’s a very similar question I asked here a few months ago: “Privacy respecting ring doorbell” https://lemm.ee/post/8165932

The clients are source available for telegram though

I mean technically the client is verifiable if you use discord in a browser tab… and verify it every time you load the web page… 🙃

Distros should ship with this this under /readme.jpg

Cool, this is exactly what I was hoping to learn but couldn’t find. It sounds like its still a pretty manual process, but thats okay. If thats how it is righ now, then thats exactly what I want to know.

I’m considering making tools (GUI local app, but also website AUTH frontend/backend tooling) to try and make systems like this more commonplace and standardized. I didn’t know about revocation keys, so I’m glad I heard about that before trying to build my own.

Nailed it

Yeah, sorry I incrementally edited the title before posting and accidentally made it make no sense. I meant publicly announce that a private key was compromised

I don’t see anywhere in his comment(s) where he says something postive about privacy guides.

It gets worse :/

I looked up the brand (Invenda). Their PDF includes “using AI”, “measuring foot traffic”, and gathering “gender/age/etc” e.g. facial recognition to estimate a persons age and gender

And in terms of “stored locally” this is straight from their website

The machine comes with a “brain” – Invenda OS – and is connected to the Invenda Cloud, which allows you to manage it remotely and gather valuable environmental, consumer and transactional data. The device can be branded according to your requirements to further enhance your brand presence.

The marketing also so fricken backwards that it reads like satire:

For a consumer, there’s no greater comfort than shopping pressure-free. Invenda Wallet allows consumers to browse, select and pay for products leisurely and privately 🤦‍♂️