Notices by rugk (rugk@social.wiuwiu.de), page 17

@laura coercion 😉

@a_breakin_glass @chr @Dee Do dragons in emoji pickers count?

@thomas Da hast du, aber Recht.

@jinxx @scabux ich finde das Ende auch sehr amüsant…

@telegnom …hätten dir die Polizisten mal lieber eine gute gezeigt 😉

@jr @eschu @Data Wie ist es denn zu "Version vom Handy genommen hat obwohl die älter war" gekommen?

Weil ein automatisches Update/Sync gibt es ja nicht. Also musst du das manuell hochgeladen haben in der Nextcloud-App oder?

»Mitarbeiter von The Guardian entdeckten, dass ein Artikel aus dem Jahr 2013 in Facebook-Gruppen geteilt wurde, als sei er aktuell, um so die Leser zu täuschen und Entrüstung auszulösen.

Deswegen hat die Zeitung Schritte in die Wege geleitet, um das Veröffentlichungsdatum eines Artikels besser zu kennzeichnen.«

So kann man auch mal eine "Petition" unterschreiben, die sich nicht _gegen_ etwas richtet, sondern einfach mal Danke sagt.👍

https://foundation.mozilla.org/de/campaigns/eu-misinformation/publisher-campaign/

@rory it's not. HTTPS can make things faster: http://httpvshttps.com/

(However, it does not use HTTP/2 yet AFAIK, but they are working on it: https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations/issues/117#issuecomment-469252084)

Wenn du "Rassisten gegen Islamisten-Netzwerk" liest, ist da ja auch etwas falsch…🤔

@tom79 why not toots, too?

@jomo Waaa… 😉

@jimpjorps @Gargron @dirt also, the general UI problem, of course. "Are you sure?" will always be answered with "Yes".

What you actually need/want is an "undo" button… 😃

@elrido and thanks for the link threat is really interesting to read. The "Pandering to the paranoid application" is a thing I did not even think about, wow…

@elrido "Should we maybe not better solve the problems on a human level" – If we can solve it better, I'd say no.

I mean, we are unlikely to ever have all countries in the world to not censor the net.

Also, that question is kinda awkward if you ask the same for HTTPS on websites: Should we use HTTPS for (static) websites (like Wikipedia) to prevent censorship or just convince countries not to filter it?

It is also not only censorship-resistance, but also privacy it brings.

@elrido …and it would create a public outslash. Would be funny, but I doubt they risk that.

After all, however, that's the purpose. And if it works in Iran or whatever, it will also work in Switzerland.

@elrido Bottom line: Sure, companies who have their own solution or specific requirements you stated may just disable it. After all, if they care, they could setup DoH (or DoT or whatever) on their own DNS server. Or even setup their own DoH server…

Tech-savvy also depends on the user. Web devs may need so, but the fallback solution might often help, too.

Legalization: Haha, yeah, possible. But I doubt so as Firefox is too unimportant (although Chrome/ium is also said to implement this)

@elrido 5. Never used DNS over IPsec. Also IPSec is cryptographically maybe not the best: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPsec#Kritik_an_IPsec https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPsec#Alleged_NSA_interference

Generally, 99% of users who use DNS, use DNS via UDP. DoH is certainly more secure there.
The use case of DoH is not users who may have setup such fancy thing as IPsec.
DNS over TLS is e.g. also an alternative.

Trusted third-party = Yes, same for any DNS solution. It's your DNS resolver server.

Racing: IT's optional and well-documented. No hidden feature.:)

@elrido Okay, if fallback does not work, because you have different/extra IP resolvings on public servers, there are other setup options. See: https://gist.github.com/bagder/5e29101079e9ac78920ba2fc718aceec

In the end, in a company network, you maybe just need to disable it. That should not be a hard thing, however…

4. ah only DNS forwarding, okay that's a very specific use case 😆. So then, just disable or create your own company DoH server.

As for censorship: Yes, that circumvention is built-in/specifically a use case of DoH.