That’s insane. And it seems perhaps like an ugly case of integration gone wrong. Are you able to Use the website and add a bookmark to the website onto your phone’s home screen or something?

That might bypass any app-based logins.

Apparently it’s feeling the Lemmy hug of death: https://archive.is/Z9Udy

It also took me a second but I got there

That is the only reason here.

That’s not a bad thing though. It means their profitability is aligned with preferences of their customers rather than a kind of “managed dissatisfaction” business model.

Commentators here seem to be missing the main point - Trump is simply responding positively to Zelensky’s offer.

I’m not sure I understand why you think that’s the ‘main’ point, it sounds like you mean this was all at Ukraine’s initiative. But I think the real story is that it has traction because, well, you need two sides to make a deal, and the game changer is Trump’s affirmative interest, which escalates this from offer to mutual interest.

So I don’t agree with you at all, I think the history of politicized communications out of Israel has been consistent enough and about enough different topics that I think it’s fair to have an escalated standard for substantiation. There have been so many preposterous lies or bizarre shifts of emphasis (e.g. we never bomb hospitals!) that the same norms that testify to institutional credibility of reliable sources, in this case do the opposite.

But that said, it’s not nothing that there’s reporting to this effect, and I have to say I’m pretty disappointed in this community for only replying to you with low effort posts, dogpiling of downvotes, whataboutism and abuse of moderation powers.

To me that represents a breakdown of communication and/or the lack of existence of norms.

I think they’re correctly pointing out a contradiction in how different sources are being trusted or distrusted. And I don’t even agree with them! But it disappoints me to see responses to them that are barely above shitposting.

I love that this counts as totalitarian from their perspective (but nothing else)

The truth is out now.

What truth? Who talks like this and thinks it means something?

at this point, I think people have mined the prompt itself?

Would be interested in any additional info on this.

Nothing alleged about it. The main app wraps your prompt in a China-friendly one

I asked it about whether the takeover of Hong Kong was met with international criticism. First I saw an answer saying yes, and a few paragraphs of examples and elaborations.

A few minutes later the answer I already saw was replaced with “sorry, that’s outside of my scope.” I think with the flood of new traffic to Deepseek, they are scaling up reviews of chat content.

Realistically what is the worst thing China is doing with your private data?

Probably mapping out the extended support networks of democratic activists in Taiwan to prepare to throw them in jail after a forcible military takeover.

but it’s a foreign actor so OOooooOOWwwwooOOOO sCaRrRey!

I love that people think this is a solid own. Lest we forget Hong Kong, or an impending hot war in Taiwan or building out extradition systems with an expanding network of countries to forcibly repatriate and torture dissidents and human rights lawyers.

You used to not have to explain why authoritarianism was bad.

Edit: I would love to know the Pro side of what happened in Hong Kong, or the forced extradition regime, since evidently I’m clearly in the wrong in thinking those were bad. What am I missing?

They all store data on Chinese servers?

Never thought I would see a version of “all lives matter” but applied to web browsers

Daily reminder that Brave uses Chromium, an open source project where all the commits are approved or denied by Google devs.

I think it’s a good special case thing but I don’t think you’re intended to host tons of stuff there as a primary account

I think the only thing you can trust is software architecture - things like E2E encryption, zero knowledge architecture, auditable code etc.

First, while the X post was not intended to be a political statement

Not intended to be a political statement? Even setting aside agreement vs disagreement, how is this (below) not a political statement?

10 years ago Republicans were the party of big business and Dems stood for the little guys, but today the tables have completely turned.

Again, regardless of whether you agree or disagree it’s like a textbook example of a political statement.

Well, like anything, it depends on context. In this context, it’s not crazy to be on high alert for weird politicized signals.

However, I think you made a pretty good point about its meaning in Taiwan given that this fellow is apparently from there, combined with it being his year of birth. So, context decides and in this case at least it seems pretty ordinary.