![](/static/66c60d9f/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/2665e448-91d9-484d-919d-113c9715fc79.png)
I mean, they’re somewhat right, if they’re talking about RS Classic -> RS2…
but yeah, he left before RS3
I mean, they’re somewhat right, if they’re talking about RS Classic -> RS2…
but yeah, he left before RS3
Nintendo would stop them. If yuzu devs want to go to court, they can continue development.
Yuzu devs could do it anonymously, but that’s gl on not doxxing yourself, at risk of lawsuit.
Femtanyl - AND IM GONE
any benefits of this over Spicetify? does SpotX also support theming?
what kind of apps cant be updated through playstore/fdroid?
it’s not that they can’t be (maybe some apps I use can’t) but rather that I don’t like some things about F-Droid. One of the big things being unreliable app updates. They are often significantly outdated compared to GitHub releases.
https://www.privacyguides.org/en/android/#f-droid
“Due to their process of building apps, apps in the official F-Droid repository often fall behind on updates. F-Droid maintainers also reuse package IDs while signing apps with their own keys, which is not ideal as it gives the F-Droid team ultimate trust.”
- Simple Gallery for your gallery (just purchased but there is an emerging fork I’m blanking on the name of)
https://github.com/FossifyOrg/Gallery
Simple Gallery was bought by ZipoApps and will be soon flooded with ads and tracking garbage, FossifyOrg forked the whole simple mobile tools suite, and will continue development independently of ZipoApps
Obtainium is great for updating apps hosted outside the playstore, big upside being you don’t need to bother with FDroid releases
I just think it’s quite funny that in their justification, they project their own arrogant judgemental attitude towards those they justify their own behavior against.
[it’s justified because] best case scenario, [the reason why] you don’t [have social media] is probably from having some sort of arrogant judgement value about people who do
seriously? I think that’s where people disagree.
it’d be different if they said:
a single woman setting up dates is going to use what limited info they have to avoid stalkers, cheaters, red pillers, and anti social people. That this might filter out perfectly normal people along with the creeps is the cost of maintaining safety and not wasting time, which is pretty much par for the course in dating
but that’s not what they said, and that’s not what people are responding to.
Imagine if some guy said:
“honestly, dating women who have social media is a red flag, at best they’re probably attention whores, but there’s also a good chance they’re a cheating slut.”
now imagine if someone responded to the “rustled jimmies” with
well, obviously they meant ((something else))
same thing, they should’ve said that then
I can only think of one extension that I’d really like on mobile right now (nitter redirect), but this is great for the future of Firefox
because we all know that license agreements are a line that trojan distributors will not cross. Not malware distribution, not hacking laws, but copyright infringement. They’d never do that at all.
I believe it would be significantly easier to submit a takedown request for copyright issues, compared to reporting an app for being malicious.
It’s nice, but I wish it had sponsorblock support, though I’m not sure if it’s something they’ll add.
using your analogy; it’s like banning access to a piracy community because sometimes pirates use it…
pirates sometimes use meme communities too, but those aren’t banned, and .world isn’t completely defederated from db0, so that’s not it.
staying anonymous online is not a crime though. copyright infringement is a crime. that’s why the analogy doesn’t make sense.
scenario is: people are linking to law-breaking content in x-community. therefore, .world is choosing to ban said x-community that facilitates it, to prevent legal liability.
you’re right, while lock picking can be illegal, it’s not always illegal. however, copyright law violations are always illegal.
this law-breaking content happens to be copyright infringement/piracy material. another example a host might ban would be a community that is linking to CP, or a community that is linking to Identity theft sources, etc. even if it’s just users posting links to this sort of content, I can understand a host not wanting to expose themselves to any sort of legal liability.