I am asking the world to delete Meta apps. Please.
I have already done as you ask!
Currently trying to delete WhatsApp and people I know are giving me a hard time...
My Meta account got locked without explanation and support couldnt tell me why, but suspiciously right after they implemented their new policies allowing hate speech but also I had deleted all of my posts going back to 2006 not long before that and had only been using it fir groups, so it wasn't as big of an impact so wasn't worth suing them to find out why I was locked out exactly or to start a new account.
"We do not collect your precise location".
So... just like, to the nearest 10 metres then?
"We do not provide bulk information to any government"
So, only on the most important politicians and nuclear scientists?
"Just the people they're interested in"
I can't believe i agree with iran.
what's unbelievable about it
Authoritarian Islamic fundamentalism.
As opposed to western "Divine Secular Absolutism"? Real funny looking words you got there, when stringed together.
Authoritarianism is a dumb, useless and meaningless term, when you understand that every state assumes authority (name me one country that doesn't assume authority, therefore isn't "authoritarian").
1979 happened because you libs couldn't stop trying to meddle in Iran's affairs.
Coulda saved spared us from the dogwhistle by just saying "they're not white".
Every state has authority over its citizens but some of them let women drive and not have to stay covered up and unable to move around or do anything eithout a man and don't support child marriage.
Hope this distinction helps!
To be clear fuck Israel they started this shit with Iran and I dont support it. But for you to say Iran isn't authoritarian is ignorant of the facts.
out of these things you said, so far iran is guilty of only requiring women to stay covered and, to a degree, child marriage (it's not a state policy, but marriage with girls as young as 9 years old is legal). as far as i know women in iran can drive (the last country where women were not allowed to drive was US ally saudi arabia) and are free to move around, work, study and such, notwithstanding the challenges that women face there (legal discrimination and the oppression that they suffer just by living in a capitalist country).
however, the liberation of women in iran won't come imposed by other nation states, especially the western capitalist ones, and certainly won't come as a result of a war against israel. they don't give a damn about the iranian people, be they women, queer, religious or ethnic minorities. the sionist establishment just want anyone that menace their grip over middle east off their necks, and that's what the iranian bourgeoisie are doing right now.
if you ask me what i think would be better, the working classes of both countries would team up to seize their military apparatuses and turn them against their elites. if that's not possible, anything that hurts western imperialism gives the world a small victory, regardless of whoever achieves them. we can take care of whoever punches the west later.
The Enlightened Centrist has entered the chat!
Of course you focus on women because that's the desirable group of objects of which you most desire, so you project your desires on to "helpless", "hapless" women who need your "civilized" and "noble" ass "saving" from these "dirty barbaric orcs".
Every state has authority over its citizens but some of them let women drive
Women can drive in Iran.
not have to stay covered up
As opposed to Europeans depriving women of their dignities and forcing them to stay as uncovered as possible?
Dear white people of France: being forced to undress wasn't exactly the liberation I was longing for
Palestinian women detail Israeli sexual assaults in Kamal Adwan raid
unable to move around or do anything eithout a man
Iranian women can move around freely, it was definitely a much bigger case then for sure, but nowadays it's literally a non-issue..
don’t support child marriage.
One nitpick on your post, you posted the age of concent not the age of allowable marrage, in in some places those are diffrent numbers
This from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_age_in_the_United_States shows the earliest allowable marrage age in each state, and I promise you California's age of concent is greater than 0
I deliberately did that to basically demonstrate Western chauvinism in its rawest form. It's greater magnitudes more fucked up than anything chauvinists blab about. Also what the fuck is California lol.
I only brought it up because I know in the US marrage laws are often the same or lower than out age of consent laws 
(from wikipedia) so I think the marrage laws are more damning, atleast in the US
How dare you criticize sharia in a lemmy.ml community you liberul??? The only thing that Iran is guilty of out of all the stuff that you listed is that they have mandatory clothing laws, but it's really just a cultural choice really, you're just brainwashed by the West's Divine Secular Absolutism which allows people to dress... freely😱😱😱. And 9 y.o. children getting married isn't a state policy you propagandist! It's just legal, that doesn't make it a state policy now does it?
And you're wrong!!! Women are allowed to drive in Iran. They just can't leave the country or anything without her husband's permission, and make sure that her hijab is not loose or she might get killed by state police.
I hope with the replies of Lemmy's beautiful Erdoganists, you have come to realize that Iran isn't a shithole Yet Another Middle Eastern Reactionary Shariah, it's a Far-Left Utopian Theocracy.
TLDR: Just switch to Lemmy.World's c/privacy ffs
I have never seen evidence that women are not allowed to drive, and I have had Iranians tell me the contrary. IRNA Irans state news if it was not down from likely DDOS I would show you posted an immage of one of the dead from Israels attack, was a women without a head covering, agian there is no evidence I can find that it is a law, just a large cultural preference. Same think with a women in Iran being dependent on a man, I have seen no evidence for this outside of the Western press.
I just want to ask a clarification, are you saying anti-child marriage is a bad thing???
But for you to say Iran isn’t authoritarian is ignorant of the facts.
We are not ignorant of the facts, but you are ignorant of your carrying water for Western imperialism. Which is understandable thanks to a lifetime of propaganda, but it’s never too late to stop.
is ignorant of the facts.
didn't google if Iran allows women to drive
Imagine trying to explain the concept of authority like a dipshit and then end it with an accusation of racism.
Could never be me lmao.
I can imagine, because it's almost always true of chronically Western libs parroting State Department buzzwords. Not really beating the allegations here.
Name one country that doesn't assume authority.
The "humanitarian", "right 2 protect" intervention propaganda bs is dead and buried after Gaza. Nobody loves religious extremists more than the USA, both domestically and internationally. The primary western whataboutist complain about adversaries is some "freedom of religion" crap, usually because the US is secretly funding literal jihadi butcher separatists to destabilize sovereign nations. It's always the most rabid extremists, religiously and politically that end up working for the US and then bite the hand that fed them by becoming Al Qaeda and ISIS.
Crickets about the Uyghur jihadis showing up as Al Qaeda forces in now "liberated" shariah law Syria. Crickets about Syria in general. Constant whining about a mostly secular state with far more rights than now, then sponsoring fanatics that curtail all these rights and go about chopping people's heads off in the street but not a word now because Syria aligns itself with the West, not because it's more democratic. Tons of whining about Iran instead of the head chopping Syrian jihadis type of "philanthropy".
Why are the jihadis around? Because the USA has already outlawed all the secular (usually communist) organizations in the Middle East for decades and declared them terrorists. Nobody hates secular organizations in the Middle East, Asia and Africa more than the USA because they're the least likely to become collaborators.
We can go on to the secondary whataboutist canard that involves doubting the democratic nature of foreign governments (whenever they're able to resist getting toppled by the CIA boys somehow). This has become just refusing to accept election results by default even when international observers are present and don't find any irregularities like in Venezuela. Elections that bring up some ultra right nutjob that loves Murica and turns his country to a neoliberal banana republic like Milei are always legitimate, but when Chaves and Maduro win they're always illegitimate for no reason other than not serving US interests. The US State Department main job is just lying all day long.
We should just bring up this matter to the UN after abolishing the undemocratic security council and the veto right that the USA has abused to continue genocides. Based on the American narrative both Republicans and Democrats accuse each other of stealing and rigging elections so at least one side must be correct. The US is infamous for gerrymandering and artificially preventing minorities from voting anyway (that didn't even have the right to vote until the 60s, imagine the level of hypocrisy it takes for the US apartheid to wag the finger towards anyone about elections). So maybe it should be invaded by every UN member to restore democracy since the US loves both democracy and invasions to restore it so much.
In fact I bet that plenty of Americans would actually fully welcome an invading force if its only goal would be to abolish the federal government and let them all vote for local fully sovereign governments instead. So maybe circulating this idea might come back to bite interventionists sooner than later.
Awww, you've been reading newspapers again.
oh honey
why do you think it's that way
I’m well aware that the British and US lead a coup to reinstall the Shah, which ultimately caused the Iranian Revolution. Islamic fundamentalism was definitely not the answer.
You sure have a lot of fucking attitude for someone criticizing people for not being your slaves. Pretty crazy you have the fucking nerve to criticize in the first place. Almost like you think they should have stayed your slaves and that would have been better.
(Somewhat unrelated to the subject, but I felt like writing my thoughts on Iran in general.)
Iran being a Shia theocracy seems repressive and backwards to us, and surely they are as theocracies tend to be. This means that thinking about Iran westerners tend to think they themselves are on the good side, while Iran is on the bad side. But this is fundamentally wrong and the west is clearly the bad actor, given that it does not have any legitimate interests in the area and only engaged for imperialistic reasons.
If you look at Iran's history you'll learn that the Islamic Revolution of Iran was a response to western influences, and those western influences came along with the 1953 coup d'etat. And this coup d'état was supported by the US & UK. And the only reason this was done was for the purpose of oil. It was in reaction to Iran trying to nationalize it's oil industry, which obviously was a good idea, but bad for the western imperialists. So you install a puppet regime, that begs for a revolution, and surprise surpise, there's a revolution and it happens to be religious and conservative. So ever since the people of Iran have been stuck with it's theocracy, Undeniably this is in part the fault of the West.
Then of course there is the anti-Israel stance of Iran, which is constantly used as proof of Iran being evil. But if just for a second you try to look at Israel from the perspective of someone from the Middle East, you'll see that Israel is a colonial state, founded by zionists who from the very start commited ethnic cleansing to secure their state. The Nakba isn't talked about much in the west, but just try to imagine a similar event happening in your region of the world by foreign powers, and you'll understand the impact that would have. That is not forgotten after a few decades, especially because Israel is still driving people from their lands and colonizing it till this very day. This isn't ancient history, this is in the present. They even returned to committing genocide all over again. Also, Israel has been the base for the US influence in the region and all the wars and interventions that come with that. How can you possibly expect Iran to not view Israel as their mortal enemy? Just imagine a Middle Eastern colonial state located in Europe or the US, created by ethnic cleansing the local population. We'd view that state as a mortal enemy and want to drive these people of our lands. I am not saying this is the proper thing to do, I am saying it's obvious that this sentiment is broadly shared. It's hardly surprising. Victims tend to have harsh views of those who attacked them.
And Iran is being attacked again, supposedly for developing nuclear weapons. Meanwhile Israel has had nuclear weapons since the 60s. But in the views of westerners this is not a problem, because Israel is good, being a democracy and all that, while Iran is bad, being a theocracy. But these are all just western frames. Why in the world would a bomb be in safe hands with a hyperagressive colonial ethnostate that has repeatedly engaged in ethnic cleanings? But not in the hands of an admittedly backwards, conservative theocracy, that wants to secure itself from western imperialism. The Iranian interest in having a bomb seems completely reasonable actually. Again, just imagine a Middle Eastern colonial hyperagressive ethnostate founded by the ethnic cleansing of your local communities. And now they have nuclear bombs. And not only that, Middle Easterns powers are constantly engaging in wars all across your region. Would it be unreasonable for you to also want a nuclear bomb in such a situation? It's a no brainer.
And as much as I dislike theocracies, I can't help but think that if the west wasn't as imperialist as we have been and still are, Iran would've developed into something completely different. Iran/Persia has always been the center of regional powers, from the Achaemenids 500 bc till today. It's a beautiful country, they have a beautiful and rich history and they have an incredible culture, from the Islamic geometry, to the persian miniatures, to the incredible Sufi poets. You can't expect a proud people as they are to lie back and be dominated by western imperialism. And the more you repress people, the more they're bound to turn to theocractic conservatist populism.
TL:DR we're not the good guys, Iran are not the bad guys.
Everyone should delete these spyware tools from their devices.
The world needs to move to digital sovereignty. It's amazing to think that a country like Iran, that is constantly under threat of the US, has so many people using Whatsapp, and probably relying on much more US software.
“We do not provide bulk information to any government.”
Millions of dollars on the other hand…
Iran isn't needed to know that WhatsApp and meta is bad.
Imperialist outlet Independent privacy washing surveillance messager Meta Whatsapp. They are platforming might - that is Meta Whatsapp spokesperson - instead of privacy focused organizations such as Electronic Frontier Foundation. Painting Iran as paranoid after litterally being attacked by zioni supremacist ruledom.
Now let's be clear. Morality police is bad. Women Life Freedom. They are suppressing humanity. But this work is made to embolden Israel and western might.
Side with folks instead. We need to enblossom the folks at ground so that they can become independent of might.
hit the gym, get a divorce
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)