You might be confusing the old OpenID with OIDC (short for Open ID Connect), which is based on Oauth2, an entirely different technology.

OpenID was definitely more decentralized compared to how OIDC is commonly used these days, but OIDC has various little know options to do similar things.

Uranium needs to be processed first, and the major uranium processing facilities Europe has been using are in Russia and this kind of equipment isn’t something you can quickly build yourself.

Because once it leaves the server there is no guarantee that the remote server understands or even respects the notion that it should be private.

Lemmy doesn’t have private communities yet afaik.

OIDC isn’t “innately centralized”, thats just how the majority of people use it. And the same will be likely true for FedCM.

And sleeping on battery technology.

Extremely annoyed at users that think everyone has iOS phones, when most of the world have Android. Thinking that the US is the only relevant place means you have serious tunnel vision. /s

Oh and blame Apple. They are extremely hostile to open-source devs publishing apps on their platform.

Sounds good, but this FedCM seems to be basically a reinvention of Oauth2/OIDC. Even if it brings some minor improvements (credentials storage in the browser or so?), it seems dead on arrival given that there doesn’t seem to be a strong dissatisfaction with how OIDC works. Or am I missing something?

Probably a bad idea to congest the limited bandwidth of Tor with voice chat.

It was actually the British: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Big_Bang

But you do realize that DeltaChat also received a quite significant amount of money from the US Open Technology Fund over its course of development and to this day it is somewhat unclear how they fund what seems to be several full time developers?

The article is shit, but I kinda agree that the Spanish government is hypocritical in this situation, but mostly for other reasons than the article states.

Anyways, this post gathered some reasonable discussion about the topic and I don’t think people will get the wrong impression that this article is something we endorse here.

nicht denken ist immer schlecht 😜

Das Verwaltungsgericht in Köln aber schon, und davon handelt der Artikel.

Ist ja gar nicht die Hauptthese des Artikels das es schlimmer wäre, sonder das ein Scheitern vor Gericht nicht unwahrscheinlich ist und man sich besser bei Zeiten Gedanken zu Strategien machen sollte die unabhängig von einem Verbotsverfahren effektiv sind.

Warum sollte ich eine Frage beantworten die wenig bis gar nichts mit dem Thema zu tun hat?

Aha, du denkst also das deine vorwiegend legalistische Betrachtung sinnvoll und zielführend ist um eine sich abzeichnende Regierungsbeteiligung der AfD zu verhindern? Na dann viel Spaß…

Auch darum geht es in dem Artikel nur nebensächlich. Was ist denn deine Strategie für den nicht unwahrscheinlichen Fall das gePRÜFt wird und das Verbotsverfahren scheitert?

Given the political affiliations of the author that isn’t exactly surprising.

Und dann? Was kommt nach PRÜF? Darum geht es in dem Artikel.

Ich habe den Eindruck du hast den Artikel entweder nicht gelesen oder nicht verstanden, da das was du hier schreibst völlig am Thema vorbei geht 🤷