Historically availability of source code has prevented that sort of thing since forever. Plus you can’t favor a specific instance, that’s the beauty of the protocol.

Availability of source code and actual auditing are entirely different.

It’s like saying google can favourite a specific email provider, they can’t,

They very well can as a private platform. For the record, google does favor specific vendors through their Google Partnership program and similarly through search results as recently found through court proceedings.

but all data on Lemmy is public

It's also managed by a single source of truth, ie. databases... correct?

So what are you worried about?

I'm not worried about anything. I asked a question to a forum which seemed to superficially accommodate questions, my bad.

Mods moderating content in ways you don’t like?

I literally don't care about moderated content, censorship, or whatever.

Maybe you’re worried that malicious software will run on your phone?

Nope.

I can see that you’re not on that level since you still don’t understand that open source is needed for transparency.

Yes, I'm lower than you. Teach me.

Or maybe you’re worried the server itself will host malicious content?

Counter question, how many straws are you grasping at here?

Realize how many questions you levied and that I was actually kind enough to take the time to answer most of them even if possibly rhetorical.

You insulted me and I'm okay with your opinions that I'm ignorant, "not on the level", or whatever. I literally just asked a question.

EDIT: I failed to proofread and had a redundancy collision.

Understood and agreed.

Nobody is making any of us use The Software^(tm)^, my question concerns your decision. Trust is an entirely separate concept and varies greatly depending on the audience.

BTW, It's not just Reddit. ;)

You could hire a resume writer if you're on LinkedIn.

Don't worry, just create an account. They'll find you with offers and guarantees to manipulate ATS (Applicant Tracking Systems) on your behalf.

They're doing SEO wrong, SPD said.

In my clients defense, "Gotta catch 'em all" is a legal requirement, not an option.

This tracks perfectly with his generation. They're always around to claim credit in the event of Success, but when there's Failure it's always "Who is responsible?"

Don't forget the OPM hack in 2014, also assuming you're in the USA and received a military/government background check.

Someday you could be part of a daily talk show panel and parrot whatever confirmation bias your audience "needs."

Congrats on the switch. The desktop has a nice vibe to it.

Curiously, did you go with UFS or ZFS for your installation?

TBH, I'm not sure if either of us (The Texas Observer and myself) know what we're talking about. IIRC, Texas classifies felony charges as 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree offenses and Misdemeanors as Class A, B, or C by their severity.

The fact that they would consider it a "Felony", or anything other than frivolous, is disheartening though I appreciate your efforts to research and correct any potential misinformation that I may have spouted. (Good catch, btw)

SMDH, Texas 🤷

TBH, Google itself is kinda "icky" and has been for awhile.

IANAL, but Texas Article 45.0218 would likely offer some protection to the kiddo since it's a Class C Misdemeanor. The short of it is that being held or detained doesn't mean that the individual was "prescribed jail time."

However, since the Texas Observer is shamelessly plugging away and, as a result, search engines may recognize the child's name, then the article (and similar "news" reports) will likely have more disastrous impacts than the actual event since the print industry is declining/desperate and the internet never forgets.