711–720 of 878 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you have to specify where it came from. You don't have to say what crime you committed, but you'd list the income under "income from illegal activities".
It’s very loose. You can just say cash and that’s fine.
Cash isn't income. It's an asset. You don't even report assets. You report income, and you have to specify where it came from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure what part of my comment amused you so much. An IM platform server can be open sourced. Just like any kind of software. It's just a matter of publishing your code and, preferably making it possible to verify that the service your users are connecting to is build using the same published code.
How could you possibly verify what code they are running server-side? Typically, the way it goes is that you implement e2ee such that even a fully compromised server cannot read the clients messages, publish the client's source code, and build it yourself or use reproducible builds. That ladt part is where you can criticize Signal. Whether they publish the server code is mostly irrelevant unless you want to run a sep…
Or if you S2S federate with the upstream server. Which is a core differentiator of XMPP and Matrix. Signal server(s) notably supported proper federation during their initial growth-phase but famously closed it off ("The ecosystem is moving").
Similar story as Google [Chat/Talk/Hangouts], which did federate over XMPP before they closed that down years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Watch his interview with Tucker Carlson and you’ll see. He doesn’t acquiesce to government requests for moderation control, censorship, and sharing private user data so they target him. He refuses to implement backdoors as well. In stark contrast to western social media companies.
> He refuses to implement backdoors as well. We have no way to know this, and (unlike Signal), Telegram doesn't give us best-effort assurances by doing things like open-sourcing its code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Watch his interview with Tucker Carlson and you’ll see. He doesn’t acquiesce to government requests for moderation control, censorship, and sharing private user data so they target him. He refuses to implement backdoors as well. In stark contrast to western social media companies.
> He refuses to implement backdoors as well. We have no way to know this, and (unlike Signal), Telegram doesn't give us best-effort assurances by doing things like open-sourcing its code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is unrelated to main thread but since you brought up UFOs and censorship. Isn't it a disgrace what Wikipedia has done to the trove of "list of UFO sightings"? Those listings were great and well documented up until about 2019 or so. They've been scrubbed heavily.
Yes it is. I don’t recall when and if I check out the list of UFO sightings on Wikipedia but I’m very aware of the problem. In the English wiki it’s a group “Guerilla Skepticism” which dominates the field on esoteric content and much more. In Germany we have the same situation and very likely every language has the same issue. The bigger pictures is that the whole content from Wikipedia gets fed into the AIs and then…
Just another guy to be traded to Russia in the next prisoner swap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is government's role to protect speech, not to censor.
It’s also the government’s role to take measures against harmful actions. Personal rights end where they start to harm others, or harm society in general. They are not an absolute, and always have to be balanced against other concerns. However, my GP comment was against the claim that “The state has no business judging the truth”. That claim as stated is absurd, because judging what is true is necessary for a state b…
The state can judge truth without censoring; and of course it should.
I suspect the other commenter isn't a censorship apologist and meant what they said. But feel free to decide what is likely true for the rest of us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, there is no logical link between the two events. Russian govt can protest that for propaganda reasons: to make a point that Western governments are restricting freedom of speech.
Durov was robbed from his previous startup at a gunpoint by Putin’s thugs, and then he had to escape, so it is unlikely Durov co-operates with Russia: https://x.com/moo9000/status/1827651335476461813
Well the embassy is complaining about this arrest, so maybe that's just counter-intelligence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s very loose. You can just say cash and that’s fine.
> You can just say cash and that’s fine. Cash isn't income. It's an asset. You don't even report assets. You report income, and you have to specify where it came from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let’s just say I encrypt illegal.content prior to uploading it to Platform A. And share the public key separately via Platform B. Maybe even refer Platform A users to a private forum on Platform B to obtain the keys. Are both platforms now on the wrong side of the law?
If either platform doesn't remove the content after having been made aware of it, yes.