Now that such a model exists, I think we can expect lobbying for making this mandatory. For the children...
Once adopted this will lead to an increase in randomly locked out accounts due to model false positives, because looking for something very rare will lead to most items flagged being false positives (Bayes statistics etc.).
This blog had a few interesting articles on the limitations of these technologies
https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/971-FB...
While this is comparing the currently used hash based approaches a classification model will have similar problems.
During the early career of Ursula von der Leyen (current EU president) in Germany she was championing a law just like that. It was something like "stop signs" for the internet and was based on DNS based blocks. The law was passed and was quickly overturned once her party won the election. During the campaign she and her party were denouncing everybody opposing the law as being friendly to csam. This feels like a bad re-run of the same script to me.
I read a lot of the right wing news on Zerohedge for a balanced media diet. If it's important it'll show up there.
In general I'd suggest looking into reading the news outlets that have produced scoops that turned out to be true after initial denials. Lately that would be the NY Post and the Daily Mail (the sections reporting on the US).
gocryptfs uses file-based encryption that is implemented as a mountable FUSE filesystem. Each file in gocryptfs is stored one corresponding encrypted file on the hard disk. Filenames are encrypted as well.
Everybody is moving to mobile and almost nobody uses Firefox on mobile. However, Firefox mobile does support extensions. Is that something that could emphasized? However, Firefox speed on mobile is much slower than Chrome. That should probably be improved upon.
For desktop there's not much of a distinguishing factor left. Chrome is good enough. I like Firefox for the privacy, but is that enough of a distinguishing factor for regular (less privacy conscious) folks?
FF implements what they call 'smart sizing' on Android. The basic principle is the larger the amount of disk space available (on Android they use disk caching) the larger the cache size. You can inspect this dynamically on your device in 'about:cache'.
I am violently critical of FF's current direction but to be fair to FF the reloading of tabs is a compromise to deal with how little disk space there usually is on Android (because the OS itself hogs large chunks of it in most Android devices).
I use firefox on android. Its frustrating at times. It doesn't integrate well with android stuff like opening up in apps I think. It takes me to the app store or doesnt even open in apps. Google stuff like looking at reviews doesn't work in firefox.
My personal record is 2 years for a text box to be added to a form. To be fair, that's harder than it may sound. The textbox must be in the web version, the app, the api. It needs to be localized, and data stored must be compliant with GDPR etc. The list goes on. It doesn't help task velocity if the PMs switch, the thing gets de-prioretized, re-prioretized and there still being ongoing discussions that question the purpose of the textbox (maybe we should do videos instead of text). After 2 years I'm happy to report the textbox launched... :-/
Germany has in the past prosecuted anti-fascists for using a strike-through of a swastica. There were some considerations for changing the law, but I don't recall what happened to it.
Note that the article doesn't say explicitly whether Google deleted the video from drive, or simply disabled the public sharing of the video. If they only disabled sharing (like they would for spam, pirated materials etc.) this may be understandable.
The headline ("Google Drive takes down user’s personal copy...") is suggestive of the file being entirely gone. There's a couple of paragraphs in the article that would seem to support this, but agree that it would be good to have it made very explicit.
Since Drive doesn't generally delete users' files for policy violations maybe the safer assumption is to assume that it wasn't deleted unless there's evidence that strongly suggests otherwise.
Recorded talk for the slides in this post.