Probably both? I did find its omission spoke loudly. I use it every day on desktop. The only enshitification I have to worry about is Alan Dye’s hit and run crimes against usability.
I’m in the same camp. The next escalation is defending against a TV scanning for, and joining unprotected neighbor networks to “phone home.” It’s a thing.
Bet this is easy to fool with a fake/honeypot open network with a high rssi that blocks all traffic except the initial captive portal / connectivity check.
I mean yeah or they include a 5G modem because the ads are so lucrative. But then we can start discussing how to cut the red wire to disarm your spy rectangle.
Imagine if we could put this kind of innovation to work to solve actual problems and not find ways to bypass people attempting to not have capitalism screaming at them 24/7 to buy things.
This is the internet hill I'll likely die on. A call-to-action is one thing, but a page that only links the word "here" is a hard fail of an author not understanding the hypertext medium.
I think of "click here" as stage direction mistakenly left in. When most authors write, they often don't write in a hypertext context. Instead of using a Markdown-like notation for links, they default to stage direction.
This is only a problem if a client application has a server certificate pinned in source code. Otherwise, you can create a cert with a privacy CA and add it to a desktop OS trusted cert store.
Adding a CA cert to the OS trust store only works if the application uses it. I've encountered apps that don't use the OS trust store or networking stack; even then it's possible to reverse engineer the traffic though[0].
I think having those four approaches is the key thing and you’re addressing it well. The flow is really the readers choice. My brain works in the way of wanting the overall explanation first. Then I seek the how-tos and tutorials.
