291–300 of 323 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would be cool if this could be tied to SSL keys. Being able to serve requests with the same SSL key could be used as verification. (obviously some edge cases like people that are behind some kind of common SSL cert like a subdomain with shared hosting)
That's impossible due to the way assymetric encryption works. It would help to indicate to the user, and maybe allow searching/grouping by certificate hash to transcend domain names
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Such "editing" was common practice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_So... Hence the "In the Soviet Union, the future is known with certainty. It's the past that keeps changing." joke. Archiving everything published by any institution as immediately-and-systematically as possible, in a cryptographically sealed and timestamped (blockchain!) publicly accessible form, may prove precious when it…
The problem would be how you guarantee the release of the keys at a time in the future. If it was possible to create a "time-locked" blockchain vault would be interesting. I can't see any way of doing that which wouldn't boil down to taking bets on the speed of advances in computing, though. But that might be good enough if the goal is just to ensure it takes "long enough" rather than guarantee a specific amount of t…
To archive something I keep a copy (file) of it (it may be an archive storing many files), calculate some digest (let's say SHA512) of the file, then immediately publish the file on my archive-webserver, and its size (amount of octets) and digest an the existing and active blockchain (in this case: Bitcoin).
As a courtesy I can let the source know that I archived.
At publishing time everyone can check that I (and no one else) archived the exact material published by the source. If I distorted the published material I cannot deny it, thanks to the timestamped digest stored in the blockchain.
Later everyone can be quite sure of the publication date and integrity of the archive, once again thanks to the timestamped digest.
Doesn't this method cover all needs? Is releasing another key necessary, which one and why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn’t go away, it’s just not public. This is to comply with copyright law. It’s still safely stored on disk.
Okay, if they have no choice in it then I understand. But as for keeping a copy on disk that practically no one can ever see, to me that strikes seems like a distinction without a difference.
> But Mr Graham argued that simply removing false information or offensive content isn’t necessarily the answer. Hateful material need not remain publicly available, he said, but certain researchers and politicians should be able to study it. They're planting the seed and seeing how the public reacts. This is ridiculous! Mark something "controversial", "possibly fake", but don't memory-hole us. An archive only archiv…
Some geographic and viewpoint diversity would help IA not fall into the trap of thinking radical views like the one you quoted are actually ideas most people support.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is no public-interest benefit in hate screeds. Sure there is. If you can't read Mein Kampf , you can't recognize when a new work is following in its footprints.
> If you can't read Mein Kampf, you can't recognize when a new work is following in its footprints. Really don't know how to make this sound nicer but... German here, we have schools. Reading the source material of a genocidal maniac would have added zero value to my education. For some reason it's weird to see this free speech is a cure-all angle repeated time and again in a forum with US focus given the current adm…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you can't read Mein Kampf, you can't recognize when a new work is following in its footprints. Really don't know how to make this sound nicer but... German here, we have schools. Reading the source material of a genocidal maniac would have added zero value to my education. For some reason it's weird to see this free speech is a cure-all angle repeated time and again in a forum with US focus given the current adm…
Have you read that source material? If not, how can you be so sure?
But that doesn't really change anything other than some centrist nonsense arguments. I was aware of his actions, philosophy, propaganda, and approach without reading it. I was also aware of the consequences, be it through visits to one of the old Konzentrationslager sites, museums, and other cultural and educational experiences. Or simply through the aftermath and it's presence of foreign military bases that are still here to this day. I'd expect most children even today having similar experiences around here and I'm honestly baffled how those kids grow up to be in their 20s and vote for far right parties regardless of the consequences. The book would have been nothing more than yet another propaganda tool of the, already pretty strongly organized, far right.
This whole thread is a weird hill to die on, the US has entire districts of schools that are forced to teach creation as fact, banning books containing scientific facts from their libraries, and people complain that we banned a book that was actively used for recruitment to the neo-nazi scene and authored by a genocidal madman?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about a Communist manifesto or other authoritarian literature? Why are we only really concerned about one type of authoritarian?
I'm curious which specific paragraphs of the Communist Manifesto is it you consider authoritarian? It's a very short text, and only chapter 2 really makes any argument of what Marx and Engels saw as the goal of communist movements, so I presume it must be something in chapter 2 you consider authoritarian. There are certainly plenty of things in there that implies too much concentration in the power of the state (e.g.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What we need is good p2p tech that will enable distributed storage that is impossible to censor while also automatically providing gazillion terabytes of storage distributed over all peers. Problem solved.
I would like that too but the government will make laws and all the peers from the p2p network will get scared
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious which specific paragraphs of the Communist Manifesto is it you consider authoritarian? It's a very short text, and only chapter 2 really makes any argument of what Marx and Engels saw as the goal of communist movements, so I presume it must be something in chapter 2 you consider authoritarian. There are certainly plenty of things in there that implies too much concentration in the power of the state (e.g.…
As it's still utilized to justify mass genocide by the state of its own citizens, and has happened multiple times and in greater numbers, let's just count this as the more dangerous book.
This response suggests to me it is quite likely you haven't read it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Banning Nazi content is easily the most obvious way to create real Nazis amongst the youth, who being young are attracted to anything taboo, or who may believe that there's some big conspiracy to cover something up so "it must be true, they don't want us to know". This is a dark line of thinking.
Ahh yes, of course, the large monolithic monoculture called "the youth" is naturally stupid enough to be "attracted to anything taboo" without thinking or questioning it. That's why they sure are attracted to other taboo things like incest and necrophilia. No. Banning Nazi content won't suddenly make it appealing to young people. Things are a lot more nuanced than "banning bad, because kids dumb".
>No. Banning Nazi content won't suddenly make it appealing to young people.
It absolutely does, because edginess is appealing to many teenagers/young adults. Not only that, but laws to this effect against blanket "hate speech" are regularly used by white supremacists and the like as evidence of, for example, Jewish people using laws to unfairly elevate themselves with the priveleges of a protected class while simultaneously suppressing thought that can lead to dissent.
Holocaust denial laws lead to increased suspicion with the justification that scepticism is banned to preserve a false narrative and prevent the lie from being discovered. It's easy to see how preposterous this is while the atrocity is relatively fresh in our collective consciousness, but what happens in 10, 20, 30 years when all survivors have been dead for some time and people rightly start to wonder why investigation of an event is illegal?
This is a weird form of puritanical censorship and the unintented consequences to society are far worse than any imagined benefits. You have no right to control thought in your image.
Edit: also, your hyperbolic mention of incest and necrophilia doesn't quite support your claims, as sexual arousal is quite strongly linked with taboo for many people, as evidenced by the wealth of voyeur, BDSM, and even incest pornography. It seems like these kinds of authoritarian proposals tend to come from sheltered minds.