this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2025
-7 points (26.7% liked)
Privacy
2845 readers
570 users here now
Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.
Rules
PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!
- Be civil and no prejudice
- Don't promote big-tech software
- No apathy and defeatism for privacy (i.e. "They already have my data, why bother?")
- No reposting of news that was already posted
- No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
- No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)
Related communities:
Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.
- !opensource@programming.dev
- !selfhosting@slrpnk.net / !selfhosted@lemmy.world
- !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !drm@lemmy.dbzer0.com
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
OP is notorious for not giving a shit about privacy (and has posted conspiracy site spam before), and this article continues the trend. PCMag gives DeepSeek a 2/5 rating but Google Gemini and OpenAI's ChatGPT get 4/5 with no heading criticizing privacy.
It gets worse: PCMag cites a Trump administration special committee report as evidence Deepseek isn't private. I could go on for a while about how both Google and OpenAI get special treatment from the US, but hopefully it's clear that they (like OP) only see danger stemming from the geographical location of the servers and not their actual harm.
PCMag describes DeepSeek data collection as "fairly standard for chatbot data collection," but then claims "other serious privacy concerns" before linking that report.
Meanwhile "OpenAI collects a significant amount of data," it "was not forthcoming" with data breaches, and the author doesn't "recommend sharing anything too sensitive with ChatGPT."
Strange DeepSeek gets the "not secure" label and ChatGPT does not.
Tankie in full force. Thanks for the usual consideration.
I don't trust the Trump administration's agenda, and I certainly don't trust a website you posted that encourages you to get 5G blockers to protect you from the "globalists."
You don't even need to double down on that site, which appears to be run by Mike Adams, an Alex Jones buddy who out-grifts Jones with snake oil sales. You could just admit you accept any source that says China is bad, tegardless of quality, and apologize and delete it.
(If I didn't know better, I'd say you were a tankie yourself... doing your best strawman of what tankies complain about. Between the far right conspiracy sites, the bad sources, and the straight-up US government stuff...)