lol not really. Not a single piracy measure I’ve ever come across was anything more than a 3-5 minute Google fix away.

Can’t you just vpn to another vpn ?

Won’t even have to. Just use any VPN provider outside of Italy that doesn’t have to comply with Italian law. lol.

I’ve been pirating a long time. Not once have I been inconvenienced by any anti-Piracy measure. There’s always another way around.

lol ok.

we stole this AI model because it’s cheap and works great and we totally “took out all the bad stuff.” Come buy API tokens. lelz.

Like, vegan “nothing with a face!” ethically? No. Absolutely not.

Vegetarian “I eat eggs and dairy?” Sure.

I said it renames the part the US controls

Okay, and yet again (and for the last time) this is incorrect. It doesn’t rename anything.

It’s not at all what you just said. Because it’s not renaming.

I honestly don’t know how to make this any simpler to digest for you. The EO changes the way the Gulf of Mexico is referenced in official correspondence for the Federal Government. It does not change the name for anyone but the federal government. That’s not the same as renaming it. The US doesn’t own it and can’t rename it.

Google is a Government contractor and is required to follow US policy to keep those contracts, which is why they’ve also changed it…

Truly I can’t make it any simpler.

It would be the same as if Congress passed memorandum changing the name of China to “Teddybear Land.” It doesn’t ipso facto change the name of China for the entire world–but instead when the federal government references China, instead of using the word China they’d use “Teddybear Land.”

It’s semantics and I cannot for the life of me understand why people are having an issue digesting what’s going on.

It doesn’t “rename” anything. It means the official US position is that the Gulf of Mexico doesn’t exist and instead it’s the Gulf of America. It’s not forcing anyone to call it that other than for official purposes–like in Governmental memos and official US documents–least of all foreign Governments or their people.

The US doesn’t own the Gulf. We can’t unilaterally change the name. But when the US Government officially refers to the Gulf, it will now be called the Gulf of America. That’s what the executive order did.

That’s fully within the right of Mexico as a country, but that has nothing to do with anything that I’ve said here.

Going forward, the official US policy (because of this executive order) is that it’s the Gulf of America. No amount of suing Google will change that.

Here you go;

American University Law Review (2009) - The Limits of Executive Power:

The President has broad discretion in choosing how to exercise these implied powers. Second, these implied powers are not plenary in nature. They are subject to three basic limitations: (1) the President may not, without congressional authorization, use these powers to change domestic law or create or alter existing legal obligations; (2) these powers are subject to regulation by Congress; and (3) in the event of a conflict between the exercise of these powers and congressional legislation, the latter prevails.

There’s no conflict and therefore within the power of the executive branch.

The executive order doesn’t conflict with anyone’s freedom of speech… The President didn’t release an executive order saying “no one is allowed to call it the Gulf of Mexico anymore!”

I’m not going to type it all out again, but here you go: https://lemm.ee/post/55471251/18276179

So you are gonna have to provide a source explaining how the president using an executive order to rename international water is “policy” that Google must follow.

It’s the executive branch. It would be the same as if Congress did the same, and passed a law saying “The Gulf of Mexico is now the Gulf of America.” There’s no source required, it’s literally how the US Government works, but if you want one; American University Law Review (2009) - The Limits of Executive Power:

The President has broad discretion in choosing how to exercise these implied powers. Second, these implied powers are not plenary in nature. They are subject to three basic limitations: (1) the President may not, without congressional authorization, use these powers to change domestic law or create or alter existing legal obligations; (2) these powers are subject to regulation by Congress; and (3) in the event of a conflict between the exercise of these powers and congressional legislation, the latter prevails.

There’s no federal law establishing the name of the Gulf of Mexico, so there’s no conflict with the first limitation. No one in Congress is willing to stop him, so no conflict with the second. And there’s no conflict with existing congressional legislation, so there’s no conflict with the third. So therefore the executive order is within the power of the executive branch.

Because Google is a US company and operates within the US, it has to follow US policy. The President just changed US policy to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico… So they either have to comply or be sued by the executive for not following US policy–which they’ll lose.

They you’ll have to explain why I, as a Canadian, have to see this stupid renaming in parentheses.

Because again, Google is a US company. So if you want to see Gulf of Mexico again, use any map provider that isn’t from a US company.

If the US truely doesn’t have a system beyond “once the president orders it, it’s renamed.”

That’s an extreme oversimplification of what’s going on here. But it kinda outlines how important it is to elect good people, huh?

And unless they want to send their troops into another country to tell that ISP what sites to block they can’t block them.

As I said to the other guy, I’m exclusively referencing France here…

It’s a US company following US policy as it’s a contract holder for the US Government they’re compelled to follow US policy. Whether anyone likes it or not, at least for right now, US policy is that the Gulf of Mexico for all intents and purposes is the Gulf of America.

President Sheinbaum can sue Google all she wants, but there’s no court that’s going to find that a US company complying with US policy is breaking the law.

There is no jurisdiction. I’m speaking exclusively about France…

If France convinces themselves that they have the right to limit access to websites via VPN and other likewise software, it’s only a matter of time before they convince themselves that they have the right to limit access at the ISP level.

Then once precedence is set, other European countries will follow Frances’ example.

The Internet was designed to withstand nuclear weapons. It’s not going down without a fight.

If you believe this statement to be accurate at all you’re not paying attention…

Won’t even matter. Like I said, if they convince themselves that they have the right to limit from within their borders it’s only a matter of time before they convince themselves that they can limit ISPs. Then you have precedence, and other countries will follow suit.

If a Government is able to successfully assert that companies within their borders must block access to content they find abhorrent, it’s only a matter of time before they’re convinced they can do it to ISPs, too.

Not only would I never use anything like this, but I’d refuse to buy any device which used this shit.

Because they’re using the data angle. Which is the worst possible angle when dealing with Americans. Our data has been stolen for decades with zero recourse with multi-billion dollar companies reselling our data without our permission. When they get caught? haha, slap on the wrist, don’t do it again. Then they do–because the fines are punitive and not prohibitive.

At least when dealing with XHS like sure, the CCP may be taking data, but like, what are they gonna do with it? They gonna send a tactical ICBM to my house? And in the end at least I’m choosing to let them have it. And not them put up notices like “We promise we won’t do XXX!” and then 2 years later you find out they’ve been doing XXX all along.

It’s literally a six of one, half dozen of the other problem. If your data is compromised either way, at least this way you get a choice of who gets it. And that’s really what pisses them off.

I’m skeptical. Citizen Lab is great, but just because they didn’t reply doesn’t mean these issues weren’t worked on or fixed. They tested 8.59.2 and the current US version is 8.59.5 with the current Chinese version being 8.70.6.

There’s been dozens of updates since the test, so it’s hard say if these test are even valid anymore. Additionally;

Network attackers can read users’ file a contents on the Android versions of the application available for download on RedNote’s website and on the Mi Store, but not in the version downloaded from the Google Play Store or the iOS version.

The major security issue isn’t even possible as long as you get them directly from the Play Store.