I did answer your questions, but if I missed something, feel free to ask and I can clarify.

Every YouTube interactions the possibility of ads now.

The clients (apps) enforce key symmetry for your own keys, server identity, and the exchanged with the other person part of a conversation. Constantly. There is no way to MITM that.

The clients are open source, and audited regularly, and yes, builds are binary reproduceable and fingerprinted on release.

That’s not to say someone can’t build a malicious copy that does dumb stuff and put it in your phone to replace the other copy, but the server would catch and reject it if it’s fingerprints don’t match the previously known good copy, or a public version.

Now you’re just coming up with weird things to justify the paranoia. None of this has anything to do with Signal itself, which is as secure as it gets.

The closest you’re probably going to get to a half decent looking WYSIWYG editor is something templatized top to bottom. Odoo, Ghost…things like that.

Nothing in particular. They all seem about the same to me. Check top rankings on GitHub perhaps.

It blocks on all the major engines. DDG included.

This will change your life: https://ublacklist.github.io/docs

I don’t use any Meta products, so not sure how you mean. If you are a user that has been sending e2e messages, then you can surely decrypt said messages if you’re a participant in those messages transactions.

It doesn’t matter if it’s criminal or civil. The costs to bring such a case are massive, and you’re leaving yourself open to a behemoth like Meta just dragging out the case for lengthy periods of time which drastically increase those costs.

No law firm files suit against a giant company like this unless they have rock solid proof they will, at the very least, land a settlement plus recuperation of costs. Just not a thing.

AMD. Saved you from the click and ads.

They have opened the kernel modules, because they pretty much had to get higher datacenter infiltration for inference work.

The userspace stuff for gaming is still closed though. Nouveau is still years away from even being useful for gaming in this way, though Nvidia could quickly move that along easily if they wanted.

🤣🤣🤣

You need a juice and a nap, Ke-mo sah-bee.

Do you know what size channel attacks are? Because nothing you’ve even tried to bring up describes one at all, or how it applies to your original comments.

Well they did this whole stupid “rebranding” of it becoming e2e after Facebook bought them a few years back, but literally every security researchers was like “Nahhhh, pass”.

What in the world are you talking about here, bud? Your comments are making zero sense.

Look, seriously, if my comment is being upvoted, it’s because I responded to yours, and people understand what I am saying in response.

You, unfortunately, clearly do not understand what I’m saying because you do not grasp how any of this works.

See every other comment in this thread describing in great detail why you are wrong, but that you fundamentally DO NOT UNDERSTAND how any of this works whatsoever.

Dude…your comments here clearly display that you do not have a single clue as to how cryptography works. You should just pack it up in this thread and head on down the road.

🤣🤣🤣😂

Bruv, before Signal launched they posted an entire whitepaper detailing their protocol, the working mechanisms of the system, and source code. So to reply to your 3 points:

1. No, this is stupid and easily verified by watching network traffic from any device. Signal isn’t secretly sending plaintext messages anywhere.
2. No, it’s not impossible to tell this at all. That’s what source code is. The executable code. Not only have NUMEROUS security audits been done on Signal by everyone from Academia, to for-profit security researchers and governments, you can easily verify that what you’re running on your phone is the same source code as what is published publicly because the fingerprint hashes for builds are also published. This means the same fingerprint you’d get building it yourself from source should also be the same as what is publicly published.
3. See my point above, but also when two users exchange keys on Signal (or in any other cryptographic sense), these keys are constantly verified. If changed, the session becomes invalid. Verifying these keys between two users is a feature of Signal, but moreover, the basics of cryptography functioning can, and have been proven, during the independent audits of Signal. Go read any of the numerous papers dating back to 2016.

If you don’t understand how any of this works, it’s just best not to comment.

It’s already a known risk, because WA uses centralized key management and servers, and always has regardless what Meta says. If you believe their bullshit, then I feel sad for you.

Also…you don’t think that LAWYERS willing to go up against Meta would have rock solid proof from these whistleblowers FIRST before filing a lawsuit?

C’mon now, buddy.