This is nice, but I'm confused about one thing: how can instance owners ensure illegal content such as CSAM doesn't get cached on their servers if defederation is not a thing?
While it may not be the most secure, for many casual users the level of encryption provided in cloud chats is good enough for the convenience of smooth cloud sync, which generally doesn't work with E2E messengers and I frequently lose messages when I restore my phone or get a new one. At least they say the encryption keys for cloud chats are scattered across multiple jurdistictions so they wouldn't be able to hand over anything (other than public chats) unless someone got a court order in bunch of different countries at the same time. I would definitely trust them more than WhatsApp even though the latter uses the Signal protocol, but I don't trust Meta to not collect metadata or possibly have other backdoors as well.
Many features existed in Vanced before YouTube pulled a bait and switch on users and put existing functionality such as background playback behind a paywall. Also, they explicitly refused to add support for things such as downloading videos, even though that also has perfectly valid non-piracy use cases.
(The YouTube Premium download feature is bad anyway because videos downloaded that way are artificially DRM-protected when the original streams are DRM-free can be downloaded using something like yt-dlp.)
Discord already has a huge problem with spam as-is. Yes, it may suck to be randomly locked out of your account when you haven't done anything wrong, but if they removed the requirement altogether it would just open the floodgates even more. Even if you don't trust them fully, they're not some random shady website that's likely to leak your number or use it for advertising. I've been regularly providing my phone number to big services like Discord for years and have never once received spam calls or texts for them. In the incredibly rare case that I do get spam it's always some Hungarian number rather than a foreign one, and they probably just got my number from some public database. It's much more common to get spam via email instead.
Either way, it's pretty easy to get a burner SIM or use Google Voice (if you're in the US), or services like getsmscode.com which provide disposable phone numbers that work with hundreds of major services for 10 cents per SMS, and you can even pay with crypto.
This isn't some sort of philosophy debate that you're trying to make it out to be. The output of a lot of tools quite simply isn't in a machine-friendly format, and it can be a nightmare to try to write a parser for them yourselves.
You are misinterpreting the Unix philosophy. It's fine to use a bunch of sed, awk, grep, etc. when you're either transforming text or processing already well-structured data. But trying to write a full-fledged parser for something with only human-readable output, especially as a shell script, definitely goes against that philosophy. Congratulations, you've managed to piece together 50 commands in a pipeline and create a monstrosity that's far from the minimalist philosophy.
In fact, I would argue that by using `jc` together with `jq` you can actually create some nice pipelines for parsing the data that will be much more in line with the Unix philosophy.
Nobody ever said this was designed to improve performance, but I have a hard time believing your claims about it being significantly slower which is not backed up by any source. Most likely, eliminating the JSON conversion would be at most an unnecessary micro-optimization. But if your code was truly performance-critical, you wouldn't be piecing it together with shell pipelines that cause a bunch of unnecessary forks, you'd write it in something like C instead.
And the "JSON was designed for the web browser" argument doesn't hold much water either. You're about several decades too late for that, JSON is extremely ubuquitous and used in a lot of non-browser contexts. Sure, some people depending on their needs may use other formats like XML or protobuf, but JSON is still very common.
I don't necessarily think either is a good thing, but Microsoft is being far more aggressive than Google is.
- In Windows 10, they already made it harder to change your default browser. You have to explicitly open the Settings app and go to the relevant page (maybe if you're lucky the app you're using can link you there at least), and then when you try to change your default browser it will try to push you to try Edge.
- In Windows 11, they went even further: you now have to change the default apps separately for every single protocol and file extension, rather than having an option to set an app as default for everything it supports. The concept of a "default web browser" that's easy to understand for the average user no longer exists.
- When Firefox decided to implement a hack to let users directly change their default browser with a single click, Microsoft decided to patch it because "it can be used by malware to hijack your default browser". Which would be a completely reasonable explanation if we ignored the context this is happening in, but they're making their ulterior motive painfully obvious.
- And now, they're going even further by injecting unwanted and unprofessional self-promotion into third-party websites without the user's consent. It's quite different from what Google is doing, because they only suggest you to switch to Chrome when you visit Google Search, they don't try to stop you when you try to download Edge or Firefox from Chrome.
I seriously hope Microsoft gets hit with an antitrust lawsuit again, they completely deserve it. Looks like they haven't learned from last time.
If MS really cared about security as they claim rather than competition, they could very easily implement a popup dialog that shows up when an app tries to change your default browser. Heck, maybe even make it part of UAC for extra security. That way, it would only take two clicks and be also far more secure than whatever they're doing right now.
Also, I'm not entirely sure about this, but I remember reading somewhere that MS is also doing the same on Firefox downloads. While Google may somewhat deserve it (though that doesn't make MS's behavior any less user-hostile), Mozilla definitely doesn't deserve it as Firefox already has a quite low market share.