← Back to context Comment by Psillisp 1 day ago You are going to need to clarify more. I have no idea what you are for. 4 comments Psillisp Reply rationalist 1 day ago Why does a person have to be "for" something? Psillisp 1 day ago [flagged] Volundr 1 day ago The statement was made to point out that this is an example where a phone number is enough metadata to to problematic for privacy. It stands on its own. It doesn't need more context or purpose. rationalist 21 hours ago "sleaze"?
rationalist 1 day ago Why does a person have to be "for" something? Psillisp 1 day ago [flagged] Volundr 1 day ago The statement was made to point out that this is an example where a phone number is enough metadata to to problematic for privacy. It stands on its own. It doesn't need more context or purpose. rationalist 21 hours ago "sleaze"?
Psillisp 1 day ago [flagged] Volundr 1 day ago The statement was made to point out that this is an example where a phone number is enough metadata to to problematic for privacy. It stands on its own. It doesn't need more context or purpose. rationalist 21 hours ago "sleaze"?
Volundr 1 day ago The statement was made to point out that this is an example where a phone number is enough metadata to to problematic for privacy. It stands on its own. It doesn't need more context or purpose.
Why does a person have to be "for" something?
[flagged]
The statement was made to point out that this is an example where a phone number is enough metadata to to problematic for privacy. It stands on its own. It doesn't need more context or purpose.
"sleaze"?