169
I'm looking for a TOS-breaking telegram client that strips out all the premium shit (lemmy.kde.social)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
77 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Hello fellow pirates! I'm tired of having all the telegram premium ads and antifeatures in the client and I'm looking for a client that removed them even if it's against the TOS. Any tips? I'd rather use an actual open source fork than a cracked version of the original

I'm looking for both Android and Desktop (Linux)

What I want is to remove the hateful ads in the channels and the "buy premium to unlock these emojis", and also to be able to arrange the folders in whatever order I like, without being forced to keep the "All messages" as first

thanks in advance!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 60 points 2 years ago (27 children)

https://github.com/nikitasius/Telegraher

No one gets to decide what i run on my device
No one gets to decide where i run my app
No one gets to decide what must be deleted

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
    •
  • [–] 28 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    It's super weird to me that pirates aren't advocating for the Free Software movement. Being able to control their own devices should be like one of their main goals.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    My main goal as a pirate is getting stuff for free, and I would reckon that the majority of pirates are the same.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago

    Free Software gives you the 4 essential freedoms. One of them is the freedom to distribute the program. So anyone could legally give you a copy for free. Sounds like what you want, no?

    Even if the authors implement some kind of DRM, any programmer can modify the program to remove that feature and share the modified version with everyone. Technically that is also possible with non-free software, but it's illegal, pretty difficult and requires special skills.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 27 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Thanks for the link! I'm trying to install the latest APK in the releases (which is 1y old), but when I try to log in it says "you're using an outdated version, please update" refusing to let me log in :(

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [+] -39 points 2 years ago (19 children)

    No one gets to decide what i run on my device

    (Except your device's manufacturer)

    No one gets to decide where i run my app

    (Except your cloud/SaaSS provider or proprietary app developer)

    No one gets to decide what must be deleted
    (Except your cloud/SaaSS provider or proprietary app developer)

    !I assume this was your point already, I am just agenda posting over here :3!<

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [+] 24 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (18 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (17 children)

    I am pointing out that user-controlled computing and user freedom is in a bad shape. That's not nay-saying, since there's a way forward: open hardware and offline-first/p2p software.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (16 children)

    We've had a way forward for 40 years and it's called Free Software: https://youtu.be/Ag1AKIl_2GM

    https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (14 children)

    I agree! But in at least one case the FSF's understanding/handling of free software is ineffective: firmware. Especially with boot chain security being increasingly implemented in a user freedom hostile way, the focus as presented by the FSF is imo too narrow.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (13 children)

    The FSF's stance is just based on our current capabilities. Most people still use proprietary operating systems. We are capable of developing free alternatives of non-free programs, even very complicated ones. But it's not realistic to think that we can currently replace all firmware for any device if we don't know how it works. The amount of products that have the RYF certificate is already very small. Even Librem 5 didn't manage to get it. When it becomes easier, I'm sure they will change the requirements or add more levels.

    I'm pretty sure Libreboot contains proprietary firmware now and GNU is planning to develop an actually libre fork. So it's silly for the developer to criticize the FSF for not being radical enough. It makes me think that the person doesn't really believe in what they are saying.

    But then the author says they want us to have proprietary firmware packages in our systems. So they want our OSes to be less libre... They even compare not including proprietary firmware to burning books... I stopped reading after that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (12 children)

    I am not saying that we need to replace every non-libre firmware, I am saying that not using firmware updates is hurting free software adoption and doesn't advance user freedom.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (11 children)

    But nobody is saying that there shouldn't be a way to update firmware. Firmware just shouldn't a be part of the OS, unless it's free. Adding proprietary components to our systems will only make it harder for us to keep our freedom.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (10 children)

    The proprietary firmware is already there, and if you don't update it, your libre system becomes more insecure and less reliable. Distributing updates for those devices is a net gain for software freedom.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (9 children)

    You don't know what the proprietary update contains. It can be a security fix, but also a backdoor. People can decide on their own if they want to update, but I see no reason why I must be forced to have proprietary stuff in my system. I want a fully libre distro. I can't switch to one, because I would have to give up on using AMD GPUs, because people like you say that this is fine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (8 children)

    No. You're using a distro which enables you to use the devices you bought. If every distro would follow the misguided path, you would be unable to use your GPU with a libre operating system at all.
    Nobody is stopping you to remove your firmware. Right now you're not doing it, because you want actually functional hardware.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    People like me can't change what big companies do. They just do it, and get their money from other companies and consumers who don't care.
    I personally don't want to watch while free operating systems become increasingly unusable and insecure. Let's instead use the devices to our advantage as much as possible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    The world won't change itself. If people did nothing 40 years ago, there wouldn't be a Free Software movement.

    It sounds like you are not using a fully free distro anyway. Most of the popular distros contain proprietary firmware, so what's the problem?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Also if you care about security, install goddamn firmware updates. The firmware on the devices is only going to get more insecure. If the company wanted to insert a backdoor, they have done it already. If an attacker wants to attack your device, an outdated device is simpler to compromise using publicly available info than to go the expensive route through the manufacturer. The first doesn't even need to be a nation state adversary.
    If you want to protect yourself against rogue devices, IOMMU and microkernels are a better and more sensible solution.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    I am forced to keep proprietary firmware in my OS to use the hardware and that's what you are advocating for. You want everyone to be forced to do that. But I don't want anything proprietary in my system. I see no reason why I should have a proprietary firmware package installed for my GPU to work. The firmware could be just on the device itself and if someone wants to change it, then they can install the package in their OS. But maybe there could also be some other way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    But then the proprietary firmware is in the device. Why do you think it makes a difference if you load it at boot time?
    It just restricts your options.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I think it's important to have boundaries. If we keep our operating systems fully free, it will be harder for anyone to pressure us to add proprietary components to them. But if our OSes already contain non-free components, it's not that hard to add more. We not only want freedom, we also want to keep it.

    It also needs to be clear for the people in our community that our main goal is freedom and getting rid of proprietary software. Convenience is less important.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    It is not convenience, it's being able to use a device at all in some cases. In others, firmware (updates) contain vital security and stability fixes.
    I agree that proprietary software should not exist. I just think that the way you advocate treating firmware harms that goal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent