Voice to Text feature using Open AI
community.e.foundation
reality — an open, secure, de-Googled system is not open, not secure, and not a de-Googled system!? This is just a new anøm disguised as open source. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Tor nodes in Advanced Privacy are routed through servers controlled by Murena. I trust /e/ Foundation OS and the Murena company less and less P.S. Regarding ‘anøm’ it was a joke—or maybe not. We’ll see if (or when) the authorities come knocking at our doors

First of all, to anyone downvoting my Comments about /e/ being a piece of shit, because…

  • they advertise themselves as degoogled, but instead let you connect to Google/Microsoft/etc services

  • replace all the propriatery not at all Secure Services from Google, with… Drumroll please… Propriatery and not at all Secure Services from themselves and actively encourage it.

  • They are For-profit

  • and being MORE out of date then even Fairphones stock roms.

… I told you so. Dm your Instance admin, pay them to send the DB entries of your Downvotes on a Thumb drive (or anything else from SSD to 3.5 inchHDD, depending on your preferences), and shove it up your rectum.

But a TL;DR:

/E/ is not Private. They just switch one bad comany to another one.

  • s38b35M5@lemmy.worldEnglish
    55·
    2 days ago

    Watching from the sidelines as a LOS ROM user, I’m disappointed by the replies from the devs. From mischaracterizing surprise, anger and generally negative feedback as positive praise to completely ignoring the two main asks of the community. For me, there are other red flags, but I’ll leave it alone.

    Ego seems to be coming into play here, and the repeated references to GrapheneOS seem to reinforce that. Handwaving new and unique criticism as if it is a continuation of an older conflict is pretty poor form.

    The basic issue as I see it (as a non-user of their platform) is to market your OS the way they do while also adding this feature without notice or explanation. Their claim that they want to stay relevant and include popular features is a straw man. There are other ways to implement it, and other ways to introduce it to the community. But that’s not relevant. Their explanation could be used to justify abandoning their stated objective of anti-big tech in any/all ways. Saying people want big corporate tech features is weak and obviously not in parity with the stated mission of privacy-first.

    It’s not always the poor choices that sink user trust; sometimes it’s a tone deaf response or unexplained motives, or opaque financial incentive structure.

    Sometimes it’s all of the above. This seems to be one of those cases.

    Ty @Luffy879 for sharing.

    E: spelling