it took you as long to find that link as it would have to look up the thing they gave you. this is not kindergarten, nobody owes you you their time. you are expected to be able to find and evaluate the validity of information yourself.
i can see what it points to. you can’t claim the statement is unfalsifiable just because you didn’t see the issues before removal. like, this is not proof-of-god tier stuff.
Source:
Just lookup “Rustdesk controversy”
The burden of proof lies upon the person making empirically unfalsifiable claims.
This. No matter how many downvotes you get for it. This all the way.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39256493
https://forum.tuxdigital.com/t/any-users-of-rustdesk-watch-out-for-unsafe-defaults/5432/2
https://www.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/comments/14kjvkg/community_consensus_on_rustdesk_with_all_the/
https://lemmy.ml/post/12462223
Sure, but RustDesk is not entirely opensource, there are key binary parts.
it took you as long to find that link as it would have to look up the thing they gave you. this is not kindergarten, nobody owes you you their time. you are expected to be able to find and evaluate the validity of information yourself.
nope I had it bookmarked
I think you should click the link above
i can see what it points to. you can’t claim the statement is unfalsifiable just because you didn’t see the issues before removal. like, this is not proof-of-god tier stuff.
I would agree but you have to draw a line somewhere or else it will end up like reddit