I apologise, my intent was not to mislead anyone, I simply edited my comment quickly after listing it to add more detail, and I thought that you has read the updated version when you replied. I have since clarified the original comment.

As for

I assure you that could look up the definitions of those words, if you were so inclined.

I already know several definitions, as I have said in comments that you definitely have read, but that wouldn’t tell me what you meant by them.

What is the ‘not necessarily’ to? I dont see how your comment disagrees with any of theirs.

It apparently has an Android version, but for an open source app, it’s not on F-Droid?

I was asking what you meant by it. How did you define the terms bad, Nazi, and murder?

Yes I think morality is subjective, but as I explained in my last comment, my subjective morality would mostly agree with your statement in the way I interpreted it, with some nuance. But I only know how I should interpret your statement if you define your terms more clearly.

Define ‘bad’.

And ‘Nazis’ too for that matter, I don’t know if you mean literally members of Hitler’s National ‘Socialist’ party, or something else.

I would generally concur that killing (murder is sometimes defined as ‘unjustified’ killing, which is screaming for a definition of what is ‘justified’ killing) does more harm than good, ie is subjectively immoral according to my own sense of morality, which was shaped through my genes that were shaped by evolution, the society I live and grew up in and the experiences I’ve had.

But killing in self defense might be moral. If someone was a member of the Nazi party because they lived in 1930s Deutschland and didn’t feel like they had any other option if they wanted their family to be safe, but didn’t actively participate in it or help oppress minorities, and found themselves stopped on the way home by a person with a gun one night, who threatened to kill them, would it be that immoral for them to shoot their attacker in self defense?

Of course, you may disagree with me on various aspects, that’s why it’s important to clarify your terms, and not make blanket and loaded statements such as ‘Nazis murdering people is bad’.

Edit: for the sake of clarity, everything after the first line is an edit.

Blocking children from online communities is blocking them from seeing external views outside of the bubbles their parents indoctrinate them into, it’s blocking them from seeing information to realise if they’re in an abusive situation and seeking help, it’s marginalising LGBT+ youth if, through no fault of their own, they happen to be born to ultra religious or LGBT+ phobic parents.

I use Seal on Android and yt-dlp-gui on Linux because they’re native apps using native theming/design languages, but it’s always cool to have another option!

Or even if it was only reported manually via humans, it would still be worth it to give them the option, and on more popular podcasts it could help lots of people. In the meantime, I just listen to the YouTube video version of the podcasts, which usually have sponsorblock.

They should have used something like the Matrix or Signal protocol, some open standard, as opposed to RCS, which you can only use on Android with two proprietary apps - Google and Samsung Messages.

Android has Java through Pojav Launcher

Java doesn’t have microtransactions and all mods and updates are free.

Why would a system without exploitation be worse rather than better? Can you give an example from the real world, or is this hypothetical?

If you publish it on github, that’s already taken care of for you!

Where does the comment say ‘serious questions’? It wasn’t edited.

Where did they say they were from the US?

IA just sound like French AI “Intelligence Artificialle”

That’s awful

If the headline doesn’t describe the article, it’s clickbait and should be shamed.

You couldn’t make Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone now because you’re not Warner Brothers and don’t own the copyright.

The first movie doesn’t even go to the future, and they say ‘back to the future’ to mean returning to 1985.