381–390 of 443 posts
I've run Freenet twice in the last twenty years. Maybe 2006, 2012? Each time CSAM was surprisingly visible. Maybe these days it's kicked off to a corner but back then it was pretty much a click away. I'm going to have to say if that's the basic motivation for censorship resistant communication in the USA, I am disappointed and sad. Wonder if it's actually useful in places where you actually have censorship, or if it'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the US, an idea can't be a "terrorist organization". In Germany, it can be This is false.
What ideas are listed as terrorist organizations in the US?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hm... This is of course "arguing semantics", which some people for some reason seem to think is a trump[§] card to declare a counter-argument irrelevant, but still: Another way to look at that leads to the direct opposite: If it doesn't yield a useful result, it's not "work" but frivolous waste. ___ [§]: Eurgh.
I wouldn't say it's a semantic argument, it's just that the semantics are a bit overloaded. The stored data is useful as a "proof of work" in the cryptocurrency sense, but it's not useful in every other sense of the word, i.e. it's not used to represent meaningful information like like text, application binaries, images, audio etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's talk about Germany, to give one example. In that country, the top court can outright declare political parties illegal, if it believes that they constitute a threat to the democratic order. This was used against the Nazis, of course - but also against the Communist party. So, ironically, under the current interpretation of 1A, communists have more freedom of speech and association in US than they do in Germany.
> Let's talk about Germany, to give one example. In that country, the top court can outright declare political parties illegal, if it believes that they constitute a threat to the democratic order. So what? Which country can't declare organisations illegal, if it determines them to be terrorist organisations? I'm pretty sure the USA can. So what does it matter if a terrorist organisation calls itself a "party"? (Didn…
Everyone wants absolute free speech until their platform is taken over by conspiracy freaks, white supremacists, nazis, and anti vaxxers...
No, I definitely want absolute free speech so folks can safely talk about taboo subjects. Not being able to have a forum to discuss taboo subjects is a creeping evil, IMO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't hate it, I've said it was a hoax since the first presentation (which was… drum roll… about rolling their own crypto — soon found to be accidentally or intentionally broken). You had to be mad to believe that literal Russian Zuckerberg, who had been known for behind-the-scenes compliance while keeping the facade of uncompromising struggle for freedom, was caring about you and your privacy. I doubt that anyone…
Complete nonsense, all of it and completely irrelevant if used as an alternative to reddit none of that crypto/security/privacy nonsense maters at all. You have zero of that on reddit or FB or any other social media and its completely useless anyway for public communities who aren't trying to do anything illegal. The thread is about a place where your "offensive" community can be hosted without the owner overlords co…
Everyone wants absolute free speech until their platform is taken over by conspiracy freaks, white supremacists, nazis, and anti vaxxers...
If the question is WHO to censor, I've always thought the solution is not at the server side but on the client side. Any platform where sensitive topics are being discussed (conspiracies for example) is going to be spammed, trolled, forum slided, etc. The solution is to have filtering on the client side take away the spam. Similar to how you have ad lists which block adsense, googleanalytics, etc. Allow ALL speech, and then filter out just the ones you want. Much better than having a tyrannical government or corrupt media or powerful tech giants do it for me.
Do they mean real censorship or the American right's skewed idea of "censorship"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe you just want to say that all Freenet users are pedophiles. Maybe you want to think that all Freenet users are pedophiles to not think about other things. Maybe you want to state that “normal person” has no reason to use (and won't ever have to consider using) anything like it. It's your choice, thank you very much. Uh, no. I just think it sometimes matters what the percent is. And I'm curious what the percen…
No, the percentage reasoning is wrong completely. There is a well known novel that ties “acceptable” percentage of suffering “when living in a society”, geometric progression of “good” expected to result from killing someone, and an actual pawn broker whose percent is considered too high to be “fair”. A century and a half later, people still don't get it. We can make that calculating approach universal. What percent…
And I think "there's some kind of fuzzy threshold where you should stop assisting someone" is a much better plan than "never assist anyone" or "always assist anyone, even hitler".
(If you think that's a strawman, you need to explain how the way you do things doesn't fit any of those three options.)
(And I'm not talking about hurting someone, or depriving them of basic human rights. Just not going out of my way to help them do what they want.)
I've run Freenet twice in the last twenty years. Maybe 2006, 2012? Each time CSAM was surprisingly visible. Maybe these days it's kicked off to a corner but back then it was pretty much a click away. I'm going to have to say if that's the basic motivation for censorship resistant communication in the USA, I am disappointed and sad. Wonder if it's actually useful in places where you actually have censorship, or if it'…
Decentralized platforms need signed messages, signed upvotes / downvotes, and an open ranking algorithm otherwise they can never be an alternative to centralized systems like Twitter Censorship shouldnt be the central focus. The real hope is that from 1000 ranking algorithms, we can find one that isn't a divisiveness amplifier
Along with pseudonymity that prevents people from pressuring you into voting as they wish.