How US Big Tech is doing in our 🇬🇧 house:

[essjayjay@tech.lgbt]

@mathzy

Good work Mathzy!

Of course by cutting out the likes of Amazon, Fashbook / WhatsApp / Meta, Twatter etc it's cutting off revenue streams to far-right propaganda platforms.

More importantly it's also diminishing donations to Trump / Heritage Foundation and other associated christo-fascist movements.

If everybody did this ... ‍️

[mathzy@mastodon.green]

@essjayjay

Cheers Sue.

Most 'ordinary' (whatever that is) people I know like the idea, but are too apathetic and just happy with the status quo...

[essjayjay@tech.lgbt]

@mathzy

" Most 'ordinary' (whatever that is) people I know like the idea, but are too apathetic and just happy with the global journey into fascism ... "
FIFY

Sadly the status quo is no longer the status quo.

[mathzy@mastodon.green]

@essjayjay

Yes - you're too right there. One good thing you can say about Trump though - is he's pushed more apathetic people into considering non-US stuff.

[erenault@piaille.fr]

@mathzy mastodon is not suitable for discord user as it has no private message and no voice chat.
#Signal is non-profit for now, ~as whatsapp was by the time~. Consider true open source alternatives.
Proton does not provide search engine

edit: whatsapp has never been non-profit.

[mathzy@mastodon.green]

@erenault

I wasn't using Discord for chat.

Signal is non-profit. 'For now' isn't an argument.

Didn't say Proton had a search engine - I was talking about the Google ecosystem.

[ticho@mas.to]

@mathzy @essjayjay The only good thing Trump did was to break the spell of the "USA are the good guys" propaganda that permeated the entire "western" world for decades if not centuries.

USA was never the good guy, they are merely good at hiding their shady stuff, smiling, and pumping out movies and other cultural artifacts to make them seem like a bastion of democracy.

Trump tore off that friendly mask.

[david_chisnall@infosec.exchange]

@erenault @mathzy

#Signal is non-profit for now, as whatsapp was by the time.

WhatsApp was never a non-profit, it was commercial from the start. It was set up in 2009 as a corporation in California. It took a lot of VC money over the next five years, before finally being sold to Facebook in 2014. It has been owned by one of the most obnoxious corporations in the world for 12 years. One of the founders was so disgusted with what they did with it that he walked away from a few hundred million dollars in golden handcuffs and gave $50M to bootstrap the Signal Foundation, but it was always a for-profit corporation.

[erenault@piaille.fr]

@mathzy if you do not use discord for chats or voice call, what is your usage so ?
I agree that proton is good for replacing the google suite
About signal, I might be excessive. I meant the argument of non-profit is not sufficient as it can change by the time. Because you cannot host your own instance, or compile the app yourself, your stuck in their system the same way as with for-profit messengers.

I'm sorry if I sounded aggressive. This was definitely not my intention

[erenault@piaille.fr]

@david_chisnall @mathzy
You are right. I don't know where I found this info but it is factually wrong
But it does not change my point. There are plenty of exemples of non-profit that switch to for-profit at some point.
Thank you for this clarification.

[david_chisnall@infosec.exchange]

@erenault @mathzy

There are plenty of exemples of non-profit that switch to for-profit at some point.

There are very few examples of 501(c)(3)s becoming for-profit corporations. The transition is incredibly hard and requires a lot of intermediate steps, all of which are visible warning signs. There are also a lot of restrictions on the ability of 501(c)(3) organisations to transfer their assets to for-profit entities.

Since you have 'plenty of examples', can you name ten? Note: they must be 501(c)(3) non-profits, not public-benefit corporations or industry groups?

[pierrette@mastodon.uno]

@mathzy
I’m on
Four out of Nine
Not bad for an ancient girl

[anon_4601@nerdculture.de]

@mathzy
Nice work! Little help to avoid US chats...

#WhatsAppAlternatives #METABoycott #USAboycott

European privacy-friendly options, not an expert. What do you think about these?

️️️️️️ SESSION
Focus on high anonymity.
Decentralized network , easy to use.
No phone, ID or email required.
FREE

️ SIMPLEX
Focus on maximum privacy
No user IDs or phone numbers required. Looks bit more complex. FREE

️DELTA CHAT
Super easy. Sign up with nickname only. No user IDs or phone n. required.
Uses an anon_ mail protocol. FREE

️ THREEMA
Very popular in Germany
Uses anonymous 8-digit Threema ID. Proprietary code 1 x 5€

ELEMENT X / MATRIX
Federated. Communicate with anyone using Matrix protocol. A bit complex for the general public, some have bridge safety concerns. FREE

SIGNAL
It's & requires a Phone N. Metadata concerns. OpenSource but centralized. FREE

Deeper dive on a post on my Mastodon. Currently in Italian, i'm translating to English and post it this afternoon

[erenault@piaille.fr]

@david_chisnall
In real world, french post, train and highways have been non profit first and then became for profit.
About internet stuffs, I'm thinking of : open ai, simple mobile tools, and mozilla in some ways.

Am I right or as for whatsapp i have been missinformed ?

I don't know what is a "501(c)" ? Does it really matter ?

[david_chisnall@infosec.exchange]

@erenault

In real world, french post, train and highways have been non profit first and then became for profit.

These are all examples of nationalised industries that were privatised, which is a totally different situation.

About internet stuffs, I'm thinking of : open ai, simple mobile tools, and mozilla in some ways.

OpenAI is an example of an organisation that is trying to transition from being a 501(c)(3). I believe they initially succeeded, though Elon Musk is suing them. It's not clear what the end state will be for them.

I don't know what is a "501(c)" ? Does it really matter ?

Yes. 501(c)(3) is a specific form of US non-profit entity. The specific form matters because that's the set of legal constraints that determine what the organisation can do. A 501(c)(3) requires state and federal oversight if they either try to transfer assets to for-profit entities or transition to being some other kind of entity. This transition is very difficult.

There are a handful of examples of organisations that have done it, but it is usually obvious long in advance that their leadership wants to, and there are lots of opportunities for other people to delay or prevent it.

[mathzy@mastodon.green]

@Pierrette

Well done you!

[mathzy@mastodon.green]

@anon_4601

All sounds good to me. I think we all have our own use cases - but the fact people can switch to alternatives is all good.