4 ms·
Now this is even more alarming! Wireguard's creator has their Microsoft account suspended... <Tin foil hat on> Microsoft doesn't want to allow software that wo
by onehair 6mo ago
Now this is even more alarming! Wireguard's creator has their Microsoft account suspended...
<Tin foil hat on>
Microsoft doesn't want to allow software that would allow the user to shield themselves, either by totally encrypting a drive, or by encrypting their network traffic!
</Tin foil hat on>
- ngetchell 6mo agoOr more likely, some automated security system flagged popular but suspicious apps for further review.
- nelox 6mo agoMaybe they let Mythos loose and it suggested the safest approach was to remove access ;)
- raxxorraxor 6mo agoWhere are the people that tried to sell us software signatures as security benefit? The reality is that they are a very specific security problem. In theory and in practice.
- Gigachad 6mo agoAutomated systems breaking things without any human contact to get them resolved seems to be the theme of the last 10 years.
- burnt-resistor 6mo agoThis phenomenon is so Orwellian with insufficient awareness, it should both be an SNL skit and a John Oliver episode. It's illiberal, neoliberal, corporate bullshit that causes harm to individuals. These companies need to be treated as utilities and the "companies can do whatever they want" arguments must be debunked and defeated because of the pervasive power they hold and immense harm they can cause to individuals without a remedy when they rug pull access without clear cause. It also reminds me of the case of the entire family who lost all of their payment-linked individual accounts including business data and an academic dissertation because the son allegedly behaved inappropriately with a bot. Collective punishment on top of technofeudal instant banishment.
- account42 6mo agoAnd the worst thing is that we have the power to collectively make that behavior into a corporation-ending scandal but we choose not to because it doesn't affect most of us personally yet.
- antiframe 6mo agoIf you use an automated process to disable accounts but then state there is no appeals process available as they stated, then you are not to be trusted to be acting in good faith. Bad actors should be called out and not given the benefit of the doubt.
- unicornporn 6mo ago> Microsoft doesn't want to allow software that would allow the user to shield themselves I don't think Microsoft cares (about anything besides making mo' money), but there are plenty of (state) actors that can influence the decision-making at Microsoft when it comes to these issues. No tinfoil needed.
- vstm 6mo ago> No tinfoil needed. That's what Big Tinfoil wants you to believe!
- falcor84 6mo agoWait, what?! I was sure that the agenda of Big Tinfoil was to generate FUD so that we buy more tinfoil for our hats. Are you implying their agenda goes even deeper?
- shevy-java 6mo agoBut making money at the expense of people is not a Tinfoil conspiracy - it's a factual statement.
- lukan 6mo agoIt is also a factual statement, that tinfoil shields (somewhat) from electromagnetic radiation.
- balamatom 6mo agoBut it is NOT necessarily a factual statement that one of the main uses of electromagnetic radiation is for humans to send information over long distances; nor that I first learned about tinfoil hats from some random piece of information that was being broadcast by means of electromagnetic radiation. It's just a vibe.
- 6mo ago
- blitzar 6mo ago"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
- BoredPositron 6mo agoThe guise of a harmless mistake has worn so thin and is so overused by tech companies that I now only see deliberate intent.
- tux1968 6mo agoI'm more convinced than ever that this aphorism has it completely backwards.
- pocksuppet 6mo agoIt was probably true at some point, then malicious people learned how to fake stupidity and they outnumber actual stupid people, and they learned how to recruit stupid people to their causes.
- xeonmc 6mo agoNever attribute to incompetence that which is adequately explained by profit motives.
- subscribed 6mo agoOr it's being spread by the malicious actors, like "money doesn't buy happiness".
- NekkoDroid 6mo agoBut it doesn't!!! It only buys things that make happy. See? Big difference! /s
- account42 6mo agoIt's a decent rule for when one of your close friends breaks your favorite mug. Not so much for complete strangers, not to mention faceless mega-corporations, making choices to fuck you over.
- Macha 6mo agoAlternatively they asked copilot to scan for crypto projects and ban them
- riskable 6mo agoYou think it would succeed at that? Come on. Copilot is for entertainment purposes only!
- bombcar 6mo agoWatching Microsoft try to dogfood Copilot is entertaining to me, in a way.
- rvnx 6mo agohttps://techcrunch.com/2026/04/05/copilot-is-for-entertainment-purposes-only-according-to-microsofts-terms-of-service/ https://techcrunch.com/2026/04/05/copilot-is-for-entertainme... At least it reached its goal if it entertained you
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- varispeed 6mo agoIt is more likely that government doesn't want to allow people to have privacy. Microsoft just obediently listen to orders and execute them.