Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spoiler Alert - all communism seems to end up that way.
Again, the USSR was NOT Communism.
It was another failed attempt at communism.
Free internet for all not such a bad idea
51–60 of 61 posts
Re: Free internet for all not such a bad idea
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, the USSR was NOT Communism.
It was another failed attempt at communism.
No it was the continuation of the tsars under a different flag, and putin again is a continuation of the tsars under a different flag. It never had anything todo with communism.
Russia always had just Kings/Emperors:
The Tsar
The Party
The Putin
Re: Free internet for all not such a bad idea
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I heard Estonians even get a state-sponsored E-Mail address, which I'd take any day over "hoping that google won't randomly delete me for reasons beyond my control".
I'm not sure I want my e-mail stored in government servers... Yet I don't like private companies storing it... And it's too complicated to manage on my own. Damn.
For sure they are a kind of black box and have more information than needed. But I met a lot of people who trust blindly on them and it is crazy for someone who came from Brazil - the place where no one trust on government about anything.
But, for me, in the end, email must die.
Re: Free internet for all not such a bad idea
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was another failed attempt at communism.
No it was the continuation of the tsars under a different flag, and putin again is a continuation of the tsars under a different flag. It never had anything todo with communism. Russia always had just Kings/Emperors: The Tsar The Party The Putin
One more try and we will achieve the utopia, eh?
Re: Free internet for all not such a bad idea
#55I think access to the Internet + an E-Mail account should be basic human rights. It's infrastructure too important to leave in the hands of private corporations. [update] I'm totally okay with this being downvoted, but I'd like the input as to why, if I'm somehow wrong, then tell me ? :)
Ah, but that's the same territory as "electricity should be a basic human right". There's actual legal debate about this. This articles summarizes that debate. [1] > This article considers three answers to the question whether electricity access should be a universal human right. A first position is that there is no human right to electricity but perhaps contractual rights related to various societies. A second posit…
I can see how it it a difficult problem, I don't think right needs to equal "free in any circumstance", I mean the right to be able to access it for a reasonable price.
Like, here in DK, I have a RIGHT to electricity, not for free, but no matter where I live geographically in this country, I have a right to be able to buy a home, and a right to a electricity subscription, the electrics company cannot just say "nah, we don't wish you as a customer" unless I really do something wrong.
For E-Mail addresses, it's not so, if nobody wants to provide me with one, then that's just too bad. Electricity is somewhat easier then email, because "the power I got yesterday" has no connection to the power I get today.. We also have a right to phone numbers, meaning that if I switch to a new provider, my phone number follows to my new subscription with no additional fee.
But if I switch e-mail provider from gmail to proton, I've no right to have my email address, no less the actual inbox transferred to my new provider.
Re: Free internet for all not such a bad idea
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I run my own, but thing is, I don't have a RIGHT to do so, I am just lucky that my ISP most mercifully lets me bounce my outgoing mail through their SMTP server, and they blocked outgoing port 25, so that's the only way for me out. I have some right to the domain on which I host my mail, but I don't have a right to a fixed static IP, and I don't have a right to be able to make outgoing connections on port 25 (o…
Did they block port 993? Port 443? Port 80?
Those ports are not important, they are for my client to connect to my server, which happens entirely within my LAN, but how do I go about SENDING mail if outgoing connections on ports 25, 587, and 465 are blocked ?
Basically, I want to send a mail to you, your server is listening on those ports because you're a normal person, and didn't rediret port 80 to be your SNMP incoming.
So, I try to make a connection to your domain:25, my packets won't even leave my ISP, my outgoing connection is simply dropped.
Try it, are you lucky enough that you can ? If you speak a bit of SMTP you can send email from telnet like that.
Re: Free internet for all not such a bad idea
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I want my e-mail stored in government servers... Yet I don't like private companies storing it... And it's too complicated to manage on my own. Damn.
Due to those concerns I've settled for a privacy focused private company set up in a country with strong information- and privacy regulation. Protonmail.
I think protonmail is a great thing, but you don't have a right to your account there, if they turn bad and decide to shut you down, what law back you up in your demand to have your account reinstated ?
Re: Free internet for all not such a bad idea
#58I think access to the Internet + an E-Mail account should be basic human rights. It's infrastructure too important to leave in the hands of private corporations. [update] I'm totally okay with this being downvoted, but I'd like the input as to why, if I'm somehow wrong, then tell me ? :)
There are several problems with this idea. As you say this infrastructure is important, but it's too important to centralise it and put into government's hands. If there is a government monopoly you will not be able to shop around, choose best service and will have to deal with * poor service, since there will be no competition and little to no incentives to improve it * lack of privacy, since law enforcements and ra…
Does not have to be actually run by govt. it could be that govt. buys services from providers, but in the end, it enforces your right to the service, so that private companies cannot just decide you don't exist anymore.
Re: Free internet for all not such a bad idea
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I want my e-mail stored in government servers... Yet I don't like private companies storing it... And it's too complicated to manage on my own. Damn.
All of your communications, sure probably not, but for all the ones that are already for government purposes, with government entities, and other basic purposes it's a good place to start. At least some uniquely identified email address is better than hoping things like court documents with legal implications get paper mailed to some previously known physical address you may or may not still have any access or relati…
we actually have something like this, but it's a too-specialized system, so it's not possible to send "mail" to people unless you're a big enough company to register for that privilege, and users can't reply via the system, so it's a receive-only solution that's also incompatible with standard technologies.
Re: Free internet for all not such a bad idea
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did they block port 993? Port 443? Port 80?
Those ports are not important, they are for my client to connect to my server, which happens entirely within my LAN, but how do I go about SENDING mail if outgoing connections on ports 25, 587, and 465 are blocked ? Basically, I want to send a mail to you, your server is listening on those ports because you're a normal person, and didn't rediret port 80 to be your SNMP incoming. So, I try to make a connection to your…
You can configure your own SMTP server on the internet to listen on whatever ports you like and configure your client to use that.