this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2026
1045 points (99.2% liked)
Greentext
7648 readers
277 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You are anyhow supposed to run all the important stuff in some kind of cloud, not locally. That exactly feeds into their plan.
I'm not opposed to this, but we (the users) need control over that cloud.
The cloud is basically by definition someone else's computer, kind of inherently opposed to user control
Yes. But you can still have a private VM in the cloud.
How is that "private"? You would need to encrypt the memory somehow, but then the key to that is also somewhere in the cloud's software/hardware... Afaik there is no possible way to make a truly private remote VM
There is actually such a thing as encrypted computation, where the vm has no idea what it's executing. But it's slow as molasses.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that, that is maybe something we will get to use when quantum computation makes it feasible, so there is some hope
If your threat model involves spying on that level, sure, self-hosting at home is probably warranted. What I mean is that I'd rather have one powerful computer and the rest, laptop, phone, etc, use that resource instead of each device being an island. I don't want my files spread out over so many devices, I want access to everything from everything.
Private if you trust the provider. Any system can be breached.