You’re right honestly. I’m sorry. I’m tired and being unintentionally annoying, so I should just delete my comments. My point is technically true, but it was just unnecessary to bring up.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I comment all the time there and read comments all the time. I never see any commenters attacked for being Jews ever. Look, that’s not to say that Jew haters aren’t on the platform, and I find it very annoying that they seem to be brigading the platform in the comment space, but the place certainly ain’t run by Nazi’s. It’s just unfortunate that people like that have to ruin the reputation of the platform and turn people off from it. The comments seem far less moderated than the videos of the platform, because remember that moderation on the Odysee front-end does exist. I’m mostly saying this for the reader, since you probably already know this, but here is one example from the community guidelines:

We don’t care about what you publish, livestream, comment, or include in channel descriptions for the most part. But we don’t allow the following: Content or posts that incite hatred or violence towards a particular group or person(s) based on, but not limited to the following: Ethnicity Disability Nationality Race Gender Religion Sexual orientation Social class/caste Gender identity/expression

So you certainly can’t argue that Odysee allows this content on the platform. I’ve only once (one time too many, though!) seen someone actually directly promote violence. I slimed it (disliked), reported it, and told other people to do the same (sliming it enough hides the comment like a spoiler), and the other viewers did so. That’s the first time I’ve ever done that, but if you saw what he was promoting, you would probably think he should go to a mental ward. Thankfully, people did slime it, and it became hidden, before eventually being removed by the site moderators.

That thing looks hilarious!

Because the general population doesn’t know much about data privacy and they are purposefully mislead and inticed into accepting agreements that share all that information out. The point of NBTV is to raise awareness.

Reason for deletion: Decided it wasn’t worth arguing like my last comment said. The readers are smart enough to see what’s stupid about your comment without me having to defend myself.

Update: Oh, you deleted all your comments, good job.

deleted by creator

I’m not disagreeing with you, but this video style is only meant to discuss the issue, not simply tell people exactly what’s happening and end it at that. But I see your point, and I’ve noted it: I’ll make sure I share more quick and to-the-point video’s when I do in the future.

I’m not going to argue with you, because I can see it won’t accomplish anything good, so I’ll just leave it at this:

No, I did not promote the Chromium monopoly, I simply asked a question, about a security issue with Firefox; this is not the same as promotion. If I wanted to promote the monopoly, this post would have been telling people why they shouldn’t use Firefox and I would have posted it on a more broad community about Web Browsers and done so on Reddit for the most impact. I’m against this monopoly, and I intentionally go out of my way to not recommend Chromium-based browsers to people. Discussion about issues with something you love is only healthy, not a promotion of another side.

I’m not taking sides because I don’t currently have time or energy to look into the issues GrapheneOS and/or Micay may or may not have, but I will say that I don’t know how you could think (at least based on the information I referenced from Graphene in my post) that they are saying or implying to people that Firefox is less secure. They did say it was inherently less secure on Android, but not in general. They did say that the Site Isolation feature specifically is less secure even on Desktop, but they didn’t say that Firefox as a whole is inherently less secure, just that it currently is on Android. I can see how an average reader may interpret that as Firefox being less secure than Chromium as a whole, but that would simply be their own misinterpretation of what’s being said.

and “The moment anyone starts calling Firefox insecure, immediately become alert”. Why? Anything is capable of being insecure and Firefox equally so. At any given time, Firefox could have security vulnerabilities (as it does), so it’s quite ridiculous to automatically assume that anyone calling Firefox out for being insecure in some way is just Daniel Micay or his “minions”

“Micay and GrapheneOS, and fans/members associated like OP are well known for…”. Are you accusing me of being associated with Micay and GrapheneOS, or am I misunderstanding you?

I’m no professional, but from my research I’ve been doing, it appears that the risk (at least one of them) is that a hacker could in theory create a website that exploits this vulnerability. If you access their website, their site could be capable of stealing sensitive information from the other Firefox tabs that you may have loaded on the side, at any given time.

I don’t see where they said any of that. Nothing was implied here, you’re just making assumptions about their point of view.

I know how helpful GPS is. Also, I am not paranoid, and you shouldn’t be making those kinds of assumptions about anyone you don’t know. I simply want to minimize private data being open for abuse and am exploring what can and can’t be done, and their benefits and disadvantages. This after all, is the privacy community you’re talking in; where you share advice and knowledge about enhancing ones privacy, not telling them they are paranoid for pursuing it.

So you’re saying that other electronics used within the car (ones that aren’t damaged by the lack of antenna) may be able to detect the lack of antenna as a “fault” and thus hinder their own functionality? Also, by “antenna”, are you referring to the one used for the radio? Like an Aerial? So my understanding is that giving the antenna connection a “dummy load” is a way of removing the antenna, and stopping the sending of data, without damaging or hindering any other electronics/components of the car.

I can see the logic of that and I think that should be an option too. Although I wouldn’t personally use that (unless what I mentioned wasn’t an option and this was)

If it doesn’t have a full-time connection, it’s still possible to have an eSim, right?

This is the first I’ve heard of a dummy load. What exactly would be the purpose of replacing the antenna with a dummy load?

Thanks, I didn’t know the eSims weren’t physical cards.

Btw, 3G network is shutting down extremely soon for both Optus and Telstra (and providers using their networks), so I won’t be able to do that with any future car. Telstra is going on August 31, Optus is going in September. Your phone probably isn’t locked to 3G, but even if your phone supports 4G and/or 5G but does not support a technology called “VoLTE”, you may not be able to call emergency services after the 3G closure date. Both Telstra and Optus have provided an option to easily check if your phone is compatible after the closure. Using either Optus, Telstra, or other providers using their network, you can text 3 to the number 3498 and they will send you an automated message telling you whether your phone will be affected after the closure or not.

https://www.optus.com.au/support/mobiles-tablets-wearables/important-changes-3g

https://www.telstra.com.au/support/mobiles-devices/3g-closure