Gotta wedge those issues.
If you replace the URL with the direct image link it will load properly in Lemmy: https://i.ibb.co/WPn1Tr0/c471a4d1-b49d-4233-8d8b-3d45b54db17b.jpg
That's an interesting avenue I hadn't considered. However, the lack of a registered trademark does not mean the lack of any rights whatsoever.
And running British concentration camps with horrible conditions is her family business, just like her dad who fled Kenya during the Mau Mau uprising.
Pretty unlikely. It's more likely they would find some way into one device and then replace its Signal app with a compromised version.
What about the latest thing they've snuck in, where they want to have member state governments control website certificate authentication?
They're not giving it to other users, they're selling it. If usernames are going to be sold then it is only right that the original user be paid a fair share.
Is there any way to provide randomised fingerprints in Firefox?
I think there are plenty of legitimate concerns here
Absolutely, Covenant Eyes is malware. Even worse, courts sometimes mandate it, eg in child custody cases. It's commercialised spying from a business that has proven itselt not trustworthy.
There's also the fact that, before the advent of gas and then electric lighting, you really couldn't see shit after dark. Tallow candles allow you to see where you're going, but they don't give off enough light to allow you to do much real work. Thus, throughout the winter there were simply fewer hours in which to do most things.
This is also likely why "dinner" was traditionally at lunchtime, and was also the main meal of the day. This was the time of day when you would most reliably have enough light to prepare a large meal. Then, when artificial lighting became a thing, upper class types started having "dinner parties" late in the evening, and for many dinner became the evening meal. It did not spread everywhere, though, in particular the north of the UK generally still thinks of dinner as lunchtime.
But that's the thing, a bot can't scoop it up without going through the user, without acquiring it from them in some way. Twitter are bypassing the user entirely and taking it from them. Also, a bot is illegitimate, however in selling usernames itself Twitter is effectively legitimising the practice.
Either usernames have no value, in which case Twitter can do with them as they please, or the usernames have value and that value rightfully belongs to the user that holds it.