data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/64727/64727419b3c912e172d8949314d9b37d9feeeca2" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/549ac/549aca4aa7ee4022dd6bf395b60d859fd9c47054" alt=""
Do you know of a provider is actually private? The few privacy policies I checked all had something like “We might keep some of your data for some time for anti-abuse or other reasons”…
Do you know of a provider is actually private? The few privacy policies I checked all had something like “We might keep some of your data for some time for anti-abuse or other reasons”…
No, that’s because social media is mostly used for informal communication, not scientific discourse.
I guarantee you that I would not use lemmy any differently if posts were authenticated with private keys than I do now when posts are authenticated by the user instance. And I’m sure most people are the same.
Edit: Also, people can already authenticate the source, by posting a direct link there. Signing wouldn’t really add that much to that.
Sure, but that has little to do with disinformation. Misleading/wrong posts don’t usually spoof the origin - they post the wrong information in their own name. They might lie about the origin of their “information”, sure - but that’s not spoofing.
I don’t understand how this will help deep fake and fake news.
Like, if this post was signed, you would know for sure it was indeed posted by @[email protected], and not by a malicious lemm.ee admin or hacker*. But the signature can’t really guarantee the truthfulness of the content. I could make a signed post that claiming that the Earth is flat - or a deep fake video of NASA’a administrator admitting so.
Maybe I’m missing your point?
(*) unless the hacker hacked me directly
It works fine for me on Hyprland.
An intelligence service monitors social media. They may as well have said, “The sky is blue.”
More interesting is,