It being statistically normal doesn’t make it better. Whether it’s true is irrelevant because even assuming it is, it’s still not better just because it’s normal.

Not even necessarily end-to-end, just encryption. And possibly encapsulation within an already allowed protocol, like it’s extremely common with HTTP these days.

That was my point too, I guess I wasn’t clear enough so thanks for elaborating. The protocol isn’t at fault, but something being a protocol (and not just a proprietary service) isn’t enough if the vast majority of the market share is being held by a few corporations.

Sadly look at email. Technically you can host it yourself but if you’re not one of the 15 or so big providers, good luck not being marked as spam before you even do anything.

The real problem is with the oligarchy controlling everything, service or protocol. This is why Threads was/is dangerous.

I don’t think so. It’s probably what keeps it small and more personal. There is also the notion of responsibility: if a person I invite causes trouble, it’s potentially on me. Maybe not on the first infraction, but if one invites 20 spammers/cryptobros/venturecapitalists, it’s reasonable to block the inviter too.

I’m not arguing one way or another (that’s not my decision anyway), but I can understand why they do this.

You’ll probably enjoy Lobsters: https://lobste.rs/

You also can’t play the socom games from PS2, because of the idea of glorifying terrorists. Since if they win, the announcer says “terrorists win”.

Wouldn’t the same apply to Counter-Strike? Did they change it since the last time I played ages ago?

Incidentally the same labels make Gmail fundamentally incompatible with the way IMAP works causing lots of weirdness whenever you use any standard email client not specifically designed for Gmail.

And what do the companies take away from this? “Cool, we just won’t leave you any other options.”

Which features do you mean? Not disagreeing with you, I’m just curious.

Subsidise how? They were using their existing plan as intended and even willing ditch the grey-area parts. If CF cannot afford to offer their plans as they are, they should change the offered plans, not hunt for easy prey.

But is it actually a joke?

I have nothing against veganism as a dietary decision, I’m actually seriously considering it for health reasons and for easier food preparation.

I am sick of veganism as a moral high horse, especially with hypocrisy in the background. I have a friend constantly ordering stuff, including vegan ingredients, from Amazon of all places. If he’s going to low-key admonish me for hurting animals, I’d expect him to care about the Amazon warehouse employees to a similar degree. Unless it’s all just posturing.

How many email accounts do you have? It might be a huge factor. I have about 7 accounts I need to check regularly and I cannot imagine doing it manually for each. I can see it working for one or maybe two though.

I wasn’t aware they added WebAuthn to the free plan recently. That’s great to hear, thanks for the correction!

I’d be perfectly okay with them just charging for Bitwarden, period. Instead they pretend it’s free but charge premium for all the most effective security features, including 2FA to their own services. Effectively it creates a group of people that use Bitwarden without access to these security features but complacent enough to not seek alternatives that would offer these features at a price acceptable for them (possibly free, like KeepassXC).

Bottom line: security shouldn’t be a premium feature. It should be either available or not at all. Never as a premium within the service.

DNS-based ad blocking is unfortunately much less effective. It’s still better than nothing though, that’s for sure.