Unfortunately it’s literally impossible to own and not rent your domain :(
It's true, and yet it's still a better alternative to not having your own domain at all (at least IMO).
Be a property owner and not a renter on the internet
131–140 of 270 posts
Re: Be a property owner and not a renter on the internet
#132A bit funny to see "owner" and "buying a domain" next to each other
Re: Be a property owner and not a renter on the internet
#133So this is a blog stating to be an owner and not a renter, and then proceeds to talk about how to rent hosting.. Sorry, but if it's not your hardware, on your property, then you're renting. Regulations have been waay too lose on, especially, american ISPs where I understand they are allowed to not only refuse you a public routable IP but also dictate what kind of traffic you're allowed to send and receive (for exampl…
I generally agree with the sentiment (and yes, internet should be treated as an utility). However, the reality is that the vast majority of people will not be able to self-host on their own hardware for a myriad of reasons (lack of skill, lack of money, lack of interest, etc.) That's not a reason to gatekeep them from having their own corner and claim it as theirs. If you have a domain and your own site, even hosted…
I don't want to gatekeep, I want to gate-unkeep! The way things are going, we're divinding the people and the companies into two classes, with the former having fewer rights and privileges than the latter.
I want everyone to have the RIGHT to participate in the Internet, should they have the interest to learn how to do it. That right is under pressure when we accept this division, when we use the excuse that "most people don't know how to", to justify taking away everyones right to even try.
If only companies have the right to participate on the internet, they are empowered even more to chose who should be allowed to even run a website.. It's a slippery slope that ends up in a very bad place, participation wise. It becomes like the airline industry, where the companies pushing hardest for more regulation and red-tape are the oldest, those who made their fortunes back when it was easier and cheaper, and who now use their enourmous wealth to make it harder for new players to enter their market.
It's the same everywhere, when you start allowing power to concentrate.
Re: Be a property owner and not a renter on the internet
#134Oh what a delight, the cartoon animal character in the infoboxes is “Krteček” [0], a popular (and quite old) character from my country. The website says that the guy is from Washington, but his name does sound vaguely Slavic. Interesting. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Mole
Delimarsky sounds more than just a bit Czech/Slovak :)
Hah! Well that certainly is a good directional guess! I am of Eastern European descent.
Also, big fan of Krtek - grew up on that cartoon, was quite an educational experience at that age.
Re: Be a property owner and not a renter on the internet
#135> Exploiting user-generated content. You know, if I've noticed anything in the past couple years, it's that even if you self-host your own site, it's still going to get hoovered up and used/exploited by things like AI training bots. I think between everyone's code getting trained on, even if it's AGPLv3 or something similarly restrictive, and generally everything public on the internet getting "trained" and "transfor…
There's a neat little thing some discords I've seen use, where they honeypot spam bots into a channel-- if someone posts into it, their messages in the last 5 minutes get deleted and their account gets kicked. Is there a meaningful way to make it so a website shares a resource that automatically updates their blacklist to block the IP address? Knowing that you will lose X but hopefully you'll retain everyone who can…
Most scrapers use residential IPs nowadays. They will just rotate their IP and go on, while the IP you banned would get assigned to an innocent user that won’t be able to access your site now.
Re: Be a property owner and not a renter on the internet
#136Started my blog[1] around five years ago and never looked back. Before that, I got burned by Medium and decided: never again. Maintaining your own little corner on the internet is easier than ever, though I agree it still requires some technical know-how. Also, I’m not sure how much I trust these WYSIWYG blog engines like Squarespace or Weebly.
[1]: https://rednafi.com
Re: Be a property owner and not a renter on the internet
#137A bit funny to see "owner" and "buying a domain" next to each other
Yeah, I wish there was a way to buy domains; not just rent them. It’s not like they’re limited in supply. For example, you kind of own your email addresses.
Re: Be a property owner and not a renter on the internet
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
> how to segment communities locally So it's not about owning vs. renting property on the internet, it's about controlling the roads that connect the properties so you can keep the world out of your community.
Ha, I have the same feeling on the recent good_social_network vs. bad_social_network debate that kinda goes on in the US. Looking from outside, it always felt that the main problem is control, and wanting more of it. The details, principles and "politics" don't matter in the grand scheme of things, it's control that people want, even tho they paint it differently. bad_social_network was good 10 years ago, because it…
One of those social networks has a protocol and lets end users make their own feed algorithm and moderation system.
The other never has.
There can be technical differences between networks as well as social.
Re: Be a property owner and not a renter on the internet
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Meta "sublicensed" my image to someone else, I wouldn't have much to say there. but you agreed to this, when agreeing to the TOS. > I post a picture on my site that is then used by a large publisher for ads, I would (at least in theory) have some recourse which you didn't sign any contract, and therefore it is a violation of copyright. But the new AI training methods are currently, at least imho, not a violation of…
>But the new AI training methods are currently, at least imho, not a violation of copyright - not any more than a human eye viewing it (which you've implicitly given permission to do so, by putting it up on the internet). I don't understand how that matters. I thought that the whole idea of copyright and licences was that the holder of the rights can decide what is ok to do with the content and what is not. If the ho…
> If the holder of the rights does not agree to a certain kind of use, what else is there to discuss?
the holder of content does not automatically get to prescribe how i would use said content, as long as i comply with the copyrights.
The holder does not get to dictate anything beyond that - for example, i can learn from the content. Or i can berate it. Copyright is not a right that covers every single conceivable use - it is a limited set of uses that have been outlayed in the law.
So the current arguments center on the fact that it is unknown if existing copyright covers the use of said works in ML training.
Re: Be a property owner and not a renter on the internet
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can absolutely see why someone rational would want to share a whole lot less, anywhere, in an open fashion, regardless of where it's hosted. I've reached the same conclusion. All data is just bits. Numbers. Once it's out there, trying to control their spread and use is just delusional. People should just stop sharing things publicly. Even things like AGPLv3 are proving to be ineffective against their exploitation…
There are two ways we can go from "copyright for me, no copyright for thee" We can force it to "copyright for me, copyright for thee" by injecting AI poison and by not sharing at all. See Nightshade. Or we can force it to "no copyright for me, no copyright for thee" by ignoring their copyright just like they ignore ours, and making sure they don't find us. See Anna's Archive.
We can also do “copyright for thee, no copyright for me”! It does sound a bit hypocritical, but until we see where the copyright needle goes this might be the safest option.