Heijoshinn t1_j9xpspo wrote

> requires providers of encrypted communications to alter their products to ensure user messages are free of material that’s harmful to children.

Oh for f***'s sake, Lovejoy Arguments?? I swear, any time I hear about regulation "for the sake of the children", it's got to be conservatives. Every freaking time, they scapegoat the idea of child protection in order to effect overwatch or controls on people.

Sounds like the U.S. EARN IT Act.


Heijoshinn t1_j9xom8a wrote

I replied to another comment of yours regarding encryption. But this statement you made gives much more clarity on your issue of "trust" in [insert company here].

Encryption works depending on it's implementation. Take AES for example. It's a standard that's wisely recognized and widely used by virtually everyone on the encryption scene. As a result, it's been tested, used in multitude of ways and is regularly attempted to be broken. That's because AES is the standard. Since this is the case, it's less likely to have side channel attack weakness due to it's wide spread application and audit.

Compare that to something like TwoFish. It's strong like AES and is built differently. You could use this method of encryption and likely be safe. However, it's not widely used. This means it's likely not audited or scrutinized as much as AES and since it's not used as much, it's implementation is also at higher risk of side channel attacks. Without players routinely executing TwoFish encryption, it's level of progress is much lower than AES by comparison. This doesn't mean TwoFish is necessarily inferior but that it doesn't have the "run time" that AES has.


Heijoshinn t1_j9xn8e9 wrote

Bruh.. Lol

You clearly don't understand how encryption works to be commenting on the subject matter. Especially when you openly admitted:

> I'm not sure how exactly Signal and these other messaging apps implement their encryption

For starters, both Signal and WhatsApp use the Signal Protocol: an encryption standard that was engineered by Signal in-house. Also, Signal is open source meaning that anyone can verify their source code on how the app was constructed. Signal wouldn't tamper with their code and even if they did, Signal is set up in such a way that any adversary that wanted to snoop would need the device itself to discover the messages.

Do more research my friend.


Heijoshinn t1_j3vmxzs wrote

> Russia will restrict travel outside the territory of the Russian Federation for citizens who have a statement declaring their readiness for military service from categories A, B and C [category A means fit for military service without any restrictions on the type of unit, category B foresees military service with minor restrictions, and category C means physically unfit for military service, however such individuals can be conscripted during wartime – ed.],"

This should clue Russian citizens that their government elites and Putin explicitly view citizens as war fodder. Yikes.


Heijoshinn t1_j1ji99i wrote

> Microsoft also enjoyed exclusivity deals before Sony

Sony entered the video game console market prior to Microsoft. Sony has repeatedly engaged in exclusivity deals to stifle competition in order to maintain it's market dominance. And this started right around the release of the Tomb Raider saga and with Crash Bandicoot. There's plenty of evidence demonstrating their exclusivity foothold dealings over time.

Nintendo bought Pokémon and earns a bludgeoning profit from its ownership as the single best selling gaming franchise in history. Yet no one burst into upheaval when Nintendo purchased all rights to it after Pokémons explosive release on the Gameboy, a handheld market that was solely controlled by Nintendo at the time.

Sega had a console market before turning into a software-only company after the Dreamcast was overshadowed by PS2s release. Unfortunately for Sega, the didn't have the capital or the studios to contend with both Nintendo and Sonys dominance. But honestly, there was a plethora of multiple problems for Sega. Some of which self inflicted. I miss Sega as a console contender, but I digress.

> Seems like this is projection to me.

Projection how? How am I imposing my statements onto other people or attempting to control a narrative? Explain.

I'm not for or against the Microsoft deal.
I'm simply illustrating the hypocrisy in the arguments of those that automatically shout "anticompetitive" over this deal when other companies have made similar deals in the past.


Heijoshinn t1_j1h2ms4 wrote

Your argument, as you've clearly admitted, is biased for Sony for weak reasonings. I'd strongly suggest you actually read the articles I posted.

> Sony have dominated the gaming market, but that's because they developed better consoles and exclusive content

How does Sony make "better" consoles? I can tell you that the ecosystem of the Xbox is much more player centric. So much so that it's very intuitive and responsive. PlayStation's isn't bad but by comparison, Microsoft is demonstrating that they research what works for gamers and what doesn't. Sony is reveling off of PlayStation's recognition and hardly innovates like it used to.
And the "better content" argument is baseless. Sony has exclusivity deals for DLC with studios and have been engaging in that type of practice for years. Sony has strict deals with the express purpose of crippling Microsofts efforts in the gaming market.

> these are often just timed

Yes, both companies have had timed exclusivity content deals.

> the major publishers that own dozens of studios for the sole reason of removing their games from Sony's library.

Smart money dictates that would be a foolish move on any companies part let alone Microsofts. Why would a company that would earn profits as a result of their acquisition of another company entirely close off a revenue source? Even if that revenue source is from a rival companies platform, it's still leaving money on the table. This move is to explicitly increase market share. Microsoft will have control over the publisher but even top execs wouldn't outlaw releases of these games from other consoles "just because". I'm willing to bet they'll use timed exclusivity much like Sony has in the past.

> Sony supports content generation

I again refer you to the links I shared.

> it IS anticompetitive

Companies engage in this type of maneuvering regularly. Windows has the highest market share for home operating systems because Microsoft engages hardware manufacturers to have them preloaded the OS most laptops. Google corners the market with the with Android OS on phones that aren't iPhones. Apple corners the market with their walled garden ecosystem and disables iMessage functionality for non Apple devices. The list of this kind of business being conducted is non-exhaustive.

Sony has had dominance in market share primarily due to the past exclusivity deals that solidified their present foundation.



Honestly, this deal isn't going to break anything other than Microsoft's wallet. And people against this deal, primarily the UK government, are hypocritically overreacting. All this energy over this deal but people weren't saying a thing when Sony was making waves in the past using similar tactics.


Heijoshinn t1_j1gwns9 wrote

Sony dominates the global console market right now.



Let's not forget that Sony has enjoyed exclusive title releases for games in the past for years. And Sony STILL has exclusive titles and continue making more exclusivity deals.




I honestly think this deal is overexaggerated by people that are Sony biased or simply don't know the history of exclusivity deal making, especially by Sony.