Comment by rationalist 13 days ago Why does a person have to be "for" something? 3 comments rationalist Reply Psillisp 13 days ago [flagged] Volundr 13 days 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 13 days ago "sleaze"?
Psillisp 13 days ago [flagged] Volundr 13 days 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 13 days ago "sleaze"?
Volundr 13 days 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.
[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"?