I think I read somewhere that this would be the default for new instances if they don’t have one of their own. On an existing instance, the server admin would have to remove the existing license which would then load this license. So this could affect more than just mastodon.social.

That being said, since this was brought up, it has been put on pause while it is reevaluated

Is there a really a quota on the CSAM detection, or do you mean catbox would only get a free 1GB of storage? No one’s saying that Cloudflare would give away 1 PB of traffic for free, obviously catbox would have to pay for it. Still though, Cloudflare or another CDN adds a lot of value which would be hard to replicate.

At that volume, you need to scale a lot, which is what CDNs are designed to do. Moving 1 PB a month in traffic would be like a sustained upload speed of 3 Gbps for an entire month, which is huge for any ISP, and cost a lot. You’d probably need to divide the traffic going out which means multiple ISP connections, and more machines for redundancy. Probably at that scale, connections are coming from all over the world, so to reduce latency, you’ll need locations in multiple continents to serve quicker. As you can probably tell, this becomes more than just one time purchases and electricity costs.

CDNs have dedicated fiber links between geographic locations and negotiated volume discount rates on bandwidth with other ISPs. From a cost and a reliability perspective, it means you can deliver content for less than hosting it all on your own.

Just remember if you need to do anything with subtitles in FFMpeg, you need to install libass

It’s so funny going through the control panel, getting to more and more esoteric settings, and seeing the UI getting older and older. I ditched Windows after Windows 7 but remember seeing menu themes that looked like they haven’t been updated since Windows NT

They even don’t support HTTPS on the older articles for that authentic 2009 internet

Agreed, I’m not saying it’s impossible to detect the OS, but it’s even more trivial for an adversary to regex the User Agent and serve the malware for that OS. The average user doesn’t even know what a User Agent is, and that’s who the drive by malware websites are counting on to infect because they’re easy targets.

Just like a real fingerprint, that will only identify the fingerprint to a person, not tell you that the fingerprint is from someone who is European. Fingerprints are used to track you across different websites, and build a profile of you for advertising.

Generally browser fingerprinting is used to identify individual browser sessions across IP addresses. This mostly takes into account reported features and capabilities of the browser and OS to the website. Fingerprinting isn’t looking for specific info your browser reports, it’s taking it all and hashing it to get a unique id specific to the browser. Because it’s hashed, it can’t be reversed to identify the OS from the hash.

Sure a malicious website could Ignore the user agent and probe for some hardware capabilities that are specific to Linux, but that would be a lot of effort to probe various things which are set differently across all different browsers. I can’t speak for bad actors, but I wouldn’t spend the effort to check if the user agent is spoofed, if 95% of the time it’s accurate to get the OS type.

Clearly you didn’t read the article. The first paragraph is about Meta censoring LGBTQ+ content

On Monday, Taylor Lorenz posted a telling story about how Meta has been suppressing access to LGBTQ content across its platforms, labeling it as “sensitive content” or “sexually explicit.”

Posts with LGBTQ+ hashtags including #lesbian, #bisexual, #gay, #trans, #queer, #nonbinary, #pansexial, #transwomen, #Tgirl, #Tboy, #Tgirlsarebeautiful, #bisexualpride, #lesbianpride, and dozens of others were hidden for any users who had their sensitive content filter turned on. Teenagers have the sensitive content filter turned on by default.

When teen users attempted to search LGBTQ terms they were shown a blank page and a prompt from Meta to review the platform’s “sensitive content” restrictions, which discuss why the app hides “sexually explicit” content.

People who comment on articles without reading the article itself should take a long look into the mirror before implying other people are advocating censorship.