> Under the hood, the foundations for web filtering support has also been added — a backend service that can enforce content filters for child accounts once the user interface is completed in future updates, allowing age‑appropriate web restrictions without breaking web security or relying on curated lists.
I wonder if this is specific to Epiphany or if it's across the board for the user. If it's just for epiphany I think it's interesting that it would be one of the first "advantages" to using it over firefox or some other browser, at least for your children. Until now as far as I'm aware it has just been a pretty, though unfortunately rough performance-wise, browser with limited extension support.
Edit: Also this might play into the looming age verification laws spreading around the world
This is the first I've heard about this! I have always slightly missed the authority Control-Alt-Delete seemed to have on windows and this does seem to be a good (maybe better) alternative.
I read 3 'It's not X it's Y' sentences in a span of just 4 sentences total. Unfortunate that this is how they choose to present this product because I think the idea is good, but it seems that it's not interesting enough to WP to justify actually writing about it themselves.
Because of how silent enshittification is becoming the norm, whenever I find a new service or program or app that I like I always wonder how long I actually have to enjoy the app before it starts removing features, ends interoperability, shuts down their APIs, or sells out to someone else who will do it for them. I'm not necessarily an open source ideologue, but it's the only type of software I feel moderately safe with making a part of my digital routine.
Stallman was kinda right. If you don't control the software, someone else does, and they'll want to control you.
I have thought about this problem, over the years, for hours, and never found any middle ground. A computer cannot serve two masters. So I put in extra effort to be the master.
I'm glad I'm not alone in finding the specific emphasis on drawing the line at domestic surveillance a bit odd. Later they also state they are against "provid[ing] a product that puts America’s warfighters and civilians at risk" (emphasis mine). Either way I'm glad they have lines at all, but it doesn't come across as particularly reassuring for people in places the US targets (wedding hosts and guests for example).
> I'm not alone in finding the specific emphasis on drawing the line at domestic surveillance a bit odd
We've always been OK with this in the pre-AI era. (See the plot line of dozens of movies where the "good" government spies on the "bad" one.) Heck we've even been OK with domestic surveillance. (See "The Wire".) Has something changed, or are we just now realizing how it's problematic?
reply