Can we assume you're also trying to avoid iOS?
Alternatives to Android:
1. Librem - https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/
2. Pine - https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/
[Disclaimer - I haven't used these devices.]
406 karma · joined September 8, 2021
Alternatives to Android:
1. Librem - https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/
2. Pine - https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/
[Disclaimer - I haven't used these devices.]
Not when, but if. Either way, being banned by Google would be catastrophic.
I've used Google Domains for years and I don't have any complaints.
Big ISPs Avoided 2020 Law Banning Predatory Modem ‘Rental’ Fees By Simply Calling Them… Something Else
Mon, Mar 14th 2022 06:06am - Karl Bode When you’re a natural telecom monopoly in America you get away with a lot.
Take for example broadband ISP Frontier Communications, which has spent the last few years stumbling in and out of bankruptcy while dodging no shortage of scandals, including allegations of subsidy fraud. A few years back, Frontier got a light wrist slap for fraudulently charging its customers a “rental” fee for modems they already owned (something ISPs like Comcast also have a long history with).
The company also paid a tiny $900,000 fine in 2020 to Washington State AG Bob Ferguson for using other completely bogus fees to rip off the company’s captive subscriber base. The problem was bad enough that Congress even passed a law (the Television Viewer Protection Act (TVPA)) specifically banning companies from charging you rental fees for things you already own.
Two years later, and Consumer Reports has found that most ISPs are just tap dancing around the law’s restrictions. In some cases by simply renaming the surcharge… something else:
“Frontier FiOS used to charge me a router fee, although I have my own router. Now they don’t have that explicit fee, but they do charge an ‘Internet Infrastructure Surcharge’ ($6.99) and a ‘Frontier Secure Personal Security Bundle’ ($5.99 after ‘discount’),” a customer in Torrance, California, wrote.
So while Frontier did remove one predatory fee, they simply replaced it with another, bullshit, predatory fee they’d already been fined for by State AGs:
“After the router fee was made illegal by the act of Congress, I quickly called up Frontier to have the fee removed, which they did going forward,” wrote a customer in Flower Mound, Texas. “However, a few months later, Frontier increased their infrastructure charge (another bogus fee) about $3 or $4 if I recall correctly. So in my mind, Frontier did a bait and switch and is just trying to play the bogus fee game but not calling it a router fee any longer.”
The 2020 bill banning the practice had to be hidden in a broader legislative package to make it past a corrupt Congress and be signed by Trump (who I’d guarantee had no idea it existed). And now that it’s formally a law, the FCC under Democratic control is dithering and engaging in a drawn out public comment period before acting on what’s very obvious billing fraud and false advertising.
When the agency does act, it will culminate in a fee that’s a tiny, tiny fraction of the money Frontier made off of predatory fees. A fee that, if history serves, may be reduced or eliminated entirely with some clever lawyering. And this is just one subset of fees. Studies have shown up to 45% of cable and broadband bills are comprised of bullshit, sneaky fees with completely made up names.
This has been a problem in the industry for decades, with ISPs like Centurylink (now Lumen) and at one point charging users a completely made-up “Internet Cost Recovery Surcharge” just to fatten their wallet. Other ISPs charge “regulatory recovery fees” that are just nonsensical ways to fatten revenue dressed up with a name to trick users into falsely blaming government.
The fees serve several functions: one, they allow ISPs and cable companies to advertise one price, then charge consumers a much higher rate. They also allow ISPs to pretend that broadband prices aren’t increasing, because they can point to their static advertised rate. They’re used to help feed Wall Street an insatiable need for quarter over quarter improvements, while doing nothing to better service.
The underlying problem is that, with the occasional exception, U.S. regulators and politicians generally approve of using bullshit fees to rip off consumers. They’re rampant in everything from telecom and banking to the airline and hotel industries. When the occasional policymaker with a backbone does act, it’s always years late and several billion dollars short of having any meaningful impact.
This is, of course, a feature and not a bug.
2017 - DVEs caused 8 deaths
2018 - DVEs caused 17 deaths
2019 - DVEs caused 32 deaths [the most lethal year since 1995]
We are talking about murderers here, primarily lone offenders. This isn't a malicious tactic for going after political opponents or free speech.
"The FBI and DHS define a Domestic Violent Extremist (DVE) as an individual based and operating primarily within the United States or its territories without direction or inspiration from a foreign terrorist group or other foreign power who seeks to further political or social goals wholly or in part through unlawful acts of force or violence. The mere advocacy of political or social positions, political activism, use of strong rhetoric, or generalized philosophic embrace of violent tactics may not constitute extremism, and may be constitutionally protected." - https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/fbi-dhs-domestic-terrori...
Are there more serious issues in America? Yes. Does that mean we should ignore this growing threat? No.
Vaccination isn't just a good idea in the abstract, it is a good idea (for public health) in the real world.
Natural immunity is not better just because it correlates to a lower breakthrough infection rate than vaccination immunity. If you choose the natural immunity path, you're subjecting yourself (and others) to higher risk of death and health problems.
Still a good idea to get vaccinated to fight / reduce risk of infection.
Focus and Scope
The Journal for Deradicalization (JD) is an independent and peer reviewed academic open access online journal about the theory and practice of deradicalization and processes of violent extremist radicalization worldwide. The journal publishes four issues per year (quarterly) and seeks to provide a platform for established scholars as well as academics, policy makers and practitioners in this field. The Journal for Deradicalization is indexed by SCOPUS and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). We invite contributors to:
- present their perspectives on the theory and practice of deradicalization work, as well as radicalization processes and new developments in radical and violent milieus or groups;
- submit to the journal accounts of evidence-based, empirical scientific research and analyses, conference reports, practical and methodological experiences from field work or policy recommendations;
- use the journal as a forum for debate and commentary on issues related to the above.
The Journal for Deradicalization (JD) is based on the independence and transparency of academic standards. All articles are openly accessible free of charge and peer reviewed by experts in the field – practitioners and academics – to ensure the policy relevance without compromising professional scholarly standards. The JD is completely independent of any specific institution or partisan policy regarding (counter-) terrorism and methods of deradicalization. Impartiality, objectivity and accuracy are guiding principles we expect contributors to adhere to.
The Journal for Deradicalization (JD) is currently indexed by SCOPUS, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and Google Scholar. The impact measure of the JD is currently a 1.4 (2020) and 1.7 (tracked for 2021) Scopus CiteScore.