▲ 160 ▼ Edward Snowden interview: 'Smartphones can be taken over' by GCHQ using activation programs (www.bbc.co.uk) submitted 5 days ago by whalesmoker@lemmy.ml to c/privacy@lemmy.ml 74 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] leftOverLife@lemmy.ml 53 points 4 days ago (2 children) Article from 2015. permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Maeve@kbin.earth 14 points 4 days ago (1 child) And? It's somehow less relevant now? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 4 days ago (1 child) It's not that it's less relevant, only that it's not generally considered good form in terms of web etiquette. You can disagree if you wish (you are entitled to that right), but that is how it currently is usually. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Maeve@kbin.earth 4 points 3 days ago (1 child) Etiquette trumps having an ever-looming reality. Smh permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 days ago* (1 child) False binary. In any case, like I said, you can disagree with the etiquette if you wish, but that is the ettiquette. So one shouldn't be surprised when people disapprove of one breaking it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 days ago (1 child) Is this "etiquette" written down somewhere, or are you just using the word etiquette to describe your personal opinions about what you were hoping to read today? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 days ago* (1 child) Like most social rules, it is an unspoken one, so obviously not explicitly written down. That being said, this particular piece of etiquette harkens all the way back to the classic web rule of "no necroing", which is still a common unspoken rule in one form or another in many parts of the Web. If you want to reference an old webpage, that's fine, but in that case it's best to not post it like it's a new webpage, which is what this does. No notice or even a single mention of how it's over 10 years old. You don't like the unspoken rule, that's fine. But don't whine about it or act shocked when people complain. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago (1 child) No notice or even a single mention of how it’s over 10 years old. The date at the top of the article disagrees. 50% of content in the fediverse is old reposts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 days ago* (1 child) The date at the top of the article disagrees. No notice or even a single mention of how it's over 10 years old in the post body. Duh. 50% of content in the fediverse is old reposts. There is a wide chasm between 6-month-old reposts and nearly 15-years-old reposts. In any case, OP was wondering why people disliked how old it was despite its relevance and I answered the question. You don't have to like the answer. I have no interest in continuing this conversation. Good day. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 child) I have no interest in continuing this conversation. Good day. You could literally not respond 😂. It's not OPs job to fully explain all aspects of content that they are posting. I'm sorry that you think it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 point 3 days ago This exchange got me curious enough to search, "is it poor etiquette to post a 10 year old article to social media," and I couldn't find anything at all about it. I'm my personal opinion, if the information therein is still relevant, post it. Others may disagree with relevance to their personal lives, but they can simply move on, if so. permalink fedilink source parent [–] courval@lemmy.world 10 points 4 days ago I think that's the point.. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 14 points 4 days ago (1 child) And? It's somehow less relevant now? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 4 days ago (1 child) It's not that it's less relevant, only that it's not generally considered good form in terms of web etiquette. You can disagree if you wish (you are entitled to that right), but that is how it currently is usually. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Maeve@kbin.earth 4 points 3 days ago (1 child) Etiquette trumps having an ever-looming reality. Smh permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 days ago* (1 child) False binary. In any case, like I said, you can disagree with the etiquette if you wish, but that is the ettiquette. So one shouldn't be surprised when people disapprove of one breaking it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 days ago (1 child) Is this "etiquette" written down somewhere, or are you just using the word etiquette to describe your personal opinions about what you were hoping to read today? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 days ago* (1 child) Like most social rules, it is an unspoken one, so obviously not explicitly written down. That being said, this particular piece of etiquette harkens all the way back to the classic web rule of "no necroing", which is still a common unspoken rule in one form or another in many parts of the Web. If you want to reference an old webpage, that's fine, but in that case it's best to not post it like it's a new webpage, which is what this does. No notice or even a single mention of how it's over 10 years old. You don't like the unspoken rule, that's fine. But don't whine about it or act shocked when people complain. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago (1 child) No notice or even a single mention of how it’s over 10 years old. The date at the top of the article disagrees. 50% of content in the fediverse is old reposts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 days ago* (1 child) The date at the top of the article disagrees. No notice or even a single mention of how it's over 10 years old in the post body. Duh. 50% of content in the fediverse is old reposts. There is a wide chasm between 6-month-old reposts and nearly 15-years-old reposts. In any case, OP was wondering why people disliked how old it was despite its relevance and I answered the question. You don't have to like the answer. I have no interest in continuing this conversation. Good day. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 child) I have no interest in continuing this conversation. Good day. You could literally not respond 😂. It's not OPs job to fully explain all aspects of content that they are posting. I'm sorry that you think it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 point 3 days ago This exchange got me curious enough to search, "is it poor etiquette to post a 10 year old article to social media," and I couldn't find anything at all about it. I'm my personal opinion, if the information therein is still relevant, post it. Others may disagree with relevance to their personal lives, but they can simply move on, if so. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 4 days ago (1 child) It's not that it's less relevant, only that it's not generally considered good form in terms of web etiquette. You can disagree if you wish (you are entitled to that right), but that is how it currently is usually. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Maeve@kbin.earth 4 points 3 days ago (1 child) Etiquette trumps having an ever-looming reality. Smh permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 days ago* (1 child) False binary. In any case, like I said, you can disagree with the etiquette if you wish, but that is the ettiquette. So one shouldn't be surprised when people disapprove of one breaking it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 days ago (1 child) Is this "etiquette" written down somewhere, or are you just using the word etiquette to describe your personal opinions about what you were hoping to read today? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 days ago* (1 child) Like most social rules, it is an unspoken one, so obviously not explicitly written down. That being said, this particular piece of etiquette harkens all the way back to the classic web rule of "no necroing", which is still a common unspoken rule in one form or another in many parts of the Web. If you want to reference an old webpage, that's fine, but in that case it's best to not post it like it's a new webpage, which is what this does. No notice or even a single mention of how it's over 10 years old. You don't like the unspoken rule, that's fine. But don't whine about it or act shocked when people complain. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago (1 child) No notice or even a single mention of how it’s over 10 years old. The date at the top of the article disagrees. 50% of content in the fediverse is old reposts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 days ago* (1 child) The date at the top of the article disagrees. No notice or even a single mention of how it's over 10 years old in the post body. Duh. 50% of content in the fediverse is old reposts. There is a wide chasm between 6-month-old reposts and nearly 15-years-old reposts. In any case, OP was wondering why people disliked how old it was despite its relevance and I answered the question. You don't have to like the answer. I have no interest in continuing this conversation. Good day. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 child) I have no interest in continuing this conversation. Good day. You could literally not respond 😂. It's not OPs job to fully explain all aspects of content that they are posting. I'm sorry that you think it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 point 3 days ago This exchange got me curious enough to search, "is it poor etiquette to post a 10 year old article to social media," and I couldn't find anything at all about it. I'm my personal opinion, if the information therein is still relevant, post it. Others may disagree with relevance to their personal lives, but they can simply move on, if so. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 4 points 3 days ago (1 child) Etiquette trumps having an ever-looming reality. Smh permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 days ago* (1 child) False binary. In any case, like I said, you can disagree with the etiquette if you wish, but that is the ettiquette. So one shouldn't be surprised when people disapprove of one breaking it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 days ago (1 child) Is this "etiquette" written down somewhere, or are you just using the word etiquette to describe your personal opinions about what you were hoping to read today? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 days ago* (1 child) Like most social rules, it is an unspoken one, so obviously not explicitly written down. That being said, this particular piece of etiquette harkens all the way back to the classic web rule of "no necroing", which is still a common unspoken rule in one form or another in many parts of the Web. If you want to reference an old webpage, that's fine, but in that case it's best to not post it like it's a new webpage, which is what this does. No notice or even a single mention of how it's over 10 years old. You don't like the unspoken rule, that's fine. But don't whine about it or act shocked when people complain. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago (1 child) No notice or even a single mention of how it’s over 10 years old. The date at the top of the article disagrees. 50% of content in the fediverse is old reposts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 days ago* (1 child) The date at the top of the article disagrees. No notice or even a single mention of how it's over 10 years old in the post body. Duh. 50% of content in the fediverse is old reposts. There is a wide chasm between 6-month-old reposts and nearly 15-years-old reposts. In any case, OP was wondering why people disliked how old it was despite its relevance and I answered the question. You don't have to like the answer. I have no interest in continuing this conversation. Good day. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 child) I have no interest in continuing this conversation. Good day. You could literally not respond 😂. It's not OPs job to fully explain all aspects of content that they are posting. I'm sorry that you think it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 point 3 days ago This exchange got me curious enough to search, "is it poor etiquette to post a 10 year old article to social media," and I couldn't find anything at all about it. I'm my personal opinion, if the information therein is still relevant, post it. Others may disagree with relevance to their personal lives, but they can simply move on, if so. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 days ago* (1 child) False binary. In any case, like I said, you can disagree with the etiquette if you wish, but that is the ettiquette. So one shouldn't be surprised when people disapprove of one breaking it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 days ago (1 child) Is this "etiquette" written down somewhere, or are you just using the word etiquette to describe your personal opinions about what you were hoping to read today? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 days ago* (1 child) Like most social rules, it is an unspoken one, so obviously not explicitly written down. That being said, this particular piece of etiquette harkens all the way back to the classic web rule of "no necroing", which is still a common unspoken rule in one form or another in many parts of the Web. If you want to reference an old webpage, that's fine, but in that case it's best to not post it like it's a new webpage, which is what this does. No notice or even a single mention of how it's over 10 years old. You don't like the unspoken rule, that's fine. But don't whine about it or act shocked when people complain. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago (1 child) No notice or even a single mention of how it’s over 10 years old. The date at the top of the article disagrees. 50% of content in the fediverse is old reposts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 days ago* (1 child) The date at the top of the article disagrees. No notice or even a single mention of how it's over 10 years old in the post body. Duh. 50% of content in the fediverse is old reposts. There is a wide chasm between 6-month-old reposts and nearly 15-years-old reposts. In any case, OP was wondering why people disliked how old it was despite its relevance and I answered the question. You don't have to like the answer. I have no interest in continuing this conversation. Good day. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 child) I have no interest in continuing this conversation. Good day. You could literally not respond 😂. It's not OPs job to fully explain all aspects of content that they are posting. I'm sorry that you think it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 point 3 days ago This exchange got me curious enough to search, "is it poor etiquette to post a 10 year old article to social media," and I couldn't find anything at all about it. I'm my personal opinion, if the information therein is still relevant, post it. Others may disagree with relevance to their personal lives, but they can simply move on, if so. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 days ago (1 child) Is this "etiquette" written down somewhere, or are you just using the word etiquette to describe your personal opinions about what you were hoping to read today? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 days ago* (1 child) Like most social rules, it is an unspoken one, so obviously not explicitly written down. That being said, this particular piece of etiquette harkens all the way back to the classic web rule of "no necroing", which is still a common unspoken rule in one form or another in many parts of the Web. If you want to reference an old webpage, that's fine, but in that case it's best to not post it like it's a new webpage, which is what this does. No notice or even a single mention of how it's over 10 years old. You don't like the unspoken rule, that's fine. But don't whine about it or act shocked when people complain. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago (1 child) No notice or even a single mention of how it’s over 10 years old. The date at the top of the article disagrees. 50% of content in the fediverse is old reposts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 days ago* (1 child) The date at the top of the article disagrees. No notice or even a single mention of how it's over 10 years old in the post body. Duh. 50% of content in the fediverse is old reposts. There is a wide chasm between 6-month-old reposts and nearly 15-years-old reposts. In any case, OP was wondering why people disliked how old it was despite its relevance and I answered the question. You don't have to like the answer. I have no interest in continuing this conversation. Good day. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 child) I have no interest in continuing this conversation. Good day. You could literally not respond 😂. It's not OPs job to fully explain all aspects of content that they are posting. I'm sorry that you think it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 point 3 days ago This exchange got me curious enough to search, "is it poor etiquette to post a 10 year old article to social media," and I couldn't find anything at all about it. I'm my personal opinion, if the information therein is still relevant, post it. Others may disagree with relevance to their personal lives, but they can simply move on, if so. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 days ago* (1 child) Like most social rules, it is an unspoken one, so obviously not explicitly written down. That being said, this particular piece of etiquette harkens all the way back to the classic web rule of "no necroing", which is still a common unspoken rule in one form or another in many parts of the Web. If you want to reference an old webpage, that's fine, but in that case it's best to not post it like it's a new webpage, which is what this does. No notice or even a single mention of how it's over 10 years old. You don't like the unspoken rule, that's fine. But don't whine about it or act shocked when people complain. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago (1 child) No notice or even a single mention of how it’s over 10 years old. The date at the top of the article disagrees. 50% of content in the fediverse is old reposts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 days ago* (1 child) The date at the top of the article disagrees. No notice or even a single mention of how it's over 10 years old in the post body. Duh. 50% of content in the fediverse is old reposts. There is a wide chasm between 6-month-old reposts and nearly 15-years-old reposts. In any case, OP was wondering why people disliked how old it was despite its relevance and I answered the question. You don't have to like the answer. I have no interest in continuing this conversation. Good day. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 child) I have no interest in continuing this conversation. Good day. You could literally not respond 😂. It's not OPs job to fully explain all aspects of content that they are posting. I'm sorry that you think it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 point 3 days ago This exchange got me curious enough to search, "is it poor etiquette to post a 10 year old article to social media," and I couldn't find anything at all about it. I'm my personal opinion, if the information therein is still relevant, post it. Others may disagree with relevance to their personal lives, but they can simply move on, if so. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago (1 child) No notice or even a single mention of how it’s over 10 years old. The date at the top of the article disagrees. 50% of content in the fediverse is old reposts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 days ago* (1 child) The date at the top of the article disagrees. No notice or even a single mention of how it's over 10 years old in the post body. Duh. 50% of content in the fediverse is old reposts. There is a wide chasm between 6-month-old reposts and nearly 15-years-old reposts. In any case, OP was wondering why people disliked how old it was despite its relevance and I answered the question. You don't have to like the answer. I have no interest in continuing this conversation. Good day. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 child) I have no interest in continuing this conversation. Good day. You could literally not respond 😂. It's not OPs job to fully explain all aspects of content that they are posting. I'm sorry that you think it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 point 3 days ago This exchange got me curious enough to search, "is it poor etiquette to post a 10 year old article to social media," and I couldn't find anything at all about it. I'm my personal opinion, if the information therein is still relevant, post it. Others may disagree with relevance to their personal lives, but they can simply move on, if so. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 days ago* (1 child) The date at the top of the article disagrees. No notice or even a single mention of how it's over 10 years old in the post body. Duh. 50% of content in the fediverse is old reposts. There is a wide chasm between 6-month-old reposts and nearly 15-years-old reposts. In any case, OP was wondering why people disliked how old it was despite its relevance and I answered the question. You don't have to like the answer. I have no interest in continuing this conversation. Good day. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 child) I have no interest in continuing this conversation. Good day. You could literally not respond 😂. It's not OPs job to fully explain all aspects of content that they are posting. I'm sorry that you think it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 point 3 days ago This exchange got me curious enough to search, "is it poor etiquette to post a 10 year old article to social media," and I couldn't find anything at all about it. I'm my personal opinion, if the information therein is still relevant, post it. Others may disagree with relevance to their personal lives, but they can simply move on, if so. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 child) I have no interest in continuing this conversation. Good day. You could literally not respond 😂. It's not OPs job to fully explain all aspects of content that they are posting. I'm sorry that you think it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 point 3 days ago This exchange got me curious enough to search, "is it poor etiquette to post a 10 year old article to social media," and I couldn't find anything at all about it. I'm my personal opinion, if the information therein is still relevant, post it. Others may disagree with relevance to their personal lives, but they can simply move on, if so. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 point 3 days ago This exchange got me curious enough to search, "is it poor etiquette to post a 10 year old article to social media," and I couldn't find anything at all about it. I'm my personal opinion, if the information therein is still relevant, post it. Others may disagree with relevance to their personal lives, but they can simply move on, if so. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] courval@lemmy.world 10 points 4 days ago I think that's the point.. permalink fedilink source parent