this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2026
1213 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

83094 readers
3118 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children)

Because you think they are conspiracies with goals to spy on you?

[–] msage@programming.dev 22 points 2 days ago (3 children)
[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

The victims of child exploitation? Or the lawyers representing them? Or..? I’m not asking about vague general “save the children” stuff. I’m talking about this lawsuit and similar.

[–] obre@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Not the person you were responding to, but IMO it's the defense attorneys / legal department working to ensure that the legal outcome is as beneficial to the corporations as possible, even if they "lose". In this case the fine is a cost of doing business, not nearly enough to actually discourage malfeasance and the legal/ PR pivot to blaming encryption rather than their algorithms is something they hope will tee them up to be able to do even more massive surveillance in the near future.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)