that would explain the google fine in russia

just this week I’ve had multiple random matrix accounts start a chat with me to post an Imgur link with some Hitler bs. I assume they just chose random members of one or more fediverse related public matrix rooms to send that to. they probably just do this with random public rooms and the fediverse relation didn’t matter.

that’s odd, my (indirect, reported by others) experience with GlobalProtect on Linux was mostly fine, although when using SAML it only really works with the GUI version and not the CLI version

it doesn’t seem to be server specific because once prompted there is no way to use the account again, even if you decided to just not use a server that may have these settings set.

no, you’re also effectively locked out of any participation unless you provide an email address and phone number, which they won’t even tell you about in advance but use dark patterns and gaslighting that they noticed “suspicious activity” to step by step first ask you for an email and then once that is validated they prompt you for a phone number. the only thing they don’t do yet is ask for ID.

it’s clearly 3, stop spreading misinformation

if you’re not community banned you might still be instance banned on the community instance, which wouldn’t show up in your local instances modlog if the ban happened on a <0.19.4 instance. if the methods pointed out by other comments here fail I suggest you visit the instance of the community and check the site modlog there, searching for your user.

i suspect you’re referring to your post to a lemmy.ml community and you have indeed been instance banned there for a limited amount of time.

I can sell you a copy of lemmys source code, are you interested?

you can enable end to end encryption, it’s optional. I don’t think it’s enabled by default.

until 0.19.4 is released, clients are supposed to suppress comment contents when the comment is either marked as removed (moderator) or deleted (creator).

they might decide to show contents to site admins or community moderators anyway, but some clients did not implement this properly and show the original content to all users.

this is of course not something that should have been available to everyone in the first place, which is why this is being fixed in 0.19.4.

depending on the client, you should still see some kind of indicator above the comment text that shows it was removed or deleted, in this case removed.

won’t be the case for much longer, the next lemmy release is removing that.

i suggest you remove this quote and summarize it with fewer details if you need to have it there in the first place. you’re effectively advertising for them now and undoing the moderator action of removing this advertisement.

I have a large library of games I’ve never played on stream. a couple months back I wanted to play a game I had installed a while ago and guess what, forced always online. not from steam, but from the shitty team behind doom (don’t remember which version it was), which just happened to be at the time I had a multi hour internet outage.
afterwards I figured out I had to explicitly block some network traffic to stop it from trying to force me to sign up for an account with the developer.

while steam certainly has DRM options, they are configurable by developers and afaik can’t enforce an always online requirement with just steam, only though custom logic in the game or third party DRM. developers are also free to not use steam DRM.

DRM, as usual, harms the legitimate buyers.

that being said, steam still does bring a lot of value, such as their hardware developments, their work on better Linux gaming support, the update distribution through a trusted source, and various others.

you’re not getting banned from steam, you’re generally getting banned from participating in anti cheat secured lobbies of a single game or a group of games.

single player experience is generally not affected.

having a 3 strike system before getting banned from multiplayer just means it’s 66% cheaper for a cheater to get a new copy of the game.

this is also not new and has been the case for the current family sharing system as well.

reporting absolutely helps. it increases visibility for content that slipped through automated moderation and having more reports for content indicates urgency.

here’s also some more context and explanation about what’s going on:

https://fedi.fyralabs.com/notes/9psdqurvye
https://fedi.fyralabs.com/notes/9psnooe6p1
https://fedi.fyralabs.com/notes/9pth6oh3xr

at that point you’ll just discourage any new users if they have to gamble on whether or not their content is actually seen by anyone. account age really isn’t a good indicator of anything other than soemone being dedicated enough to spam. considering this isn’t the first wave of csam attacks, i can assure you that whoever is targeting lemmy with this is determined enough that account age won’t deter them for long, they’ll just have to slightly adjust their playbook.

that doesn’t do anything, they’ll just register accounts in advance and wait some days.

we’ve even had spam recently from accounts that had been dormant for months, although it was a different kind of spam.

account deletion does not federate in general, only banning (+ content removal) does

The 90 days disclosure you’re referencing, which I believe is primarily popularized by Google’s Project Zero process, is the time from when someone discovers and reports a vulnerability to the time it will be published by the reporter if there is no disclosure by the vendor by then.

The disclosure by the vendor to their users (people running Lemmy instances in this case) is a completely separate topic, and, depending on the context, tends to happen quite differently from vendor to vendor.

As an example, GitLab publishes security advisories the day the fixed version is released, e.g. https://about.gitlab.com/releases/2024/01/11/critical-security-release-gitlab-16-7-2-released/.
Some vendors will choose to release a new version, wait a few weeks or so, then publish a security advisory about issues addressed in the previous release. One company I’ve frequently seen this with is Atlassian. This is also what happened with Lemmy in this case.

As Lemmy is an open source project, anyone could go and review all commits for potential security impact and to determine whether something may be exploitable. This would similarly apply to any other open source project, regardless of whether the commit is pushed some time between releases or just before a release. If someone is determined enough and spends time on this they’ll be able to find vulnerabilities in various projects before an advisory is published.

The “responsible” alternative for this would have been to publish an advisory at the time it was previously privately disclosed to admins of larger instances, which was right around the christmas holidays, when many people would already be preoccupied with other things in their life.

requiring an app to open chests? what?

I’m glad I’ve been avoiding Ubisoft like the plague they are for all the other issues already.