Founder of slrpnk.net, now busy with other projects :)

  • 10 Posts
  • 24 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: March 22nd, 2022

help-circle










  • For me, their “explanation” is pure nonsense

    It’s badly written imo. There are 2 implicit informations:

    • proton couldn’t give them anything else
    • the ip was not used to track them anyway (yes it’s cringe to say but i mean I’m not Andy Chen nor the people who proof checked the post lol)

    there are some providers that I don’t use

    Ye, I’m asking to know which provider you use that does not comply with local law

    sorry for making false promises

    Promises were never false. They did not track ip and they don’t. They had to start for that specific user after the order…

    It’s more like “we didn’t add extra clauses to our statements to make it clearer from start that bla bla bla”.

    Marketing can be useful for a lot of reasons but it should never take the place of education. And vice versa.


  • Proton gave the IP address, person got arrested is the story I know and it’s the one presented in the euronews article

    The euro news article also links the French source and they say that a lot of the work was analyzing photos on Instagram

    What a weird statement to make to justify giving up an IP address

    Cmon… It’s a sentence linked to the next one. They are not using that as a way to justify anything, they just explained how ip was “enough”.

    I totally don’t trust them.

    Not that you would need trust. Just use tor or a vpn if you need to hide ip while doing stuff you know police is interested in…

    I wonder which email provider you are using right now after being so confindent :P











  • honestly i don’t like automated systems based on content of the post rather than number

    too easy to become biased against non native talkers and occasional promotion is healthy in a community

    p.s. i’m also thinkign out loud, the web is too empty of actual discussions like the one we having right now, not everything has to be published only when finished :D (even tho on commercial social media it’s actually the opposite of having too much noise lol)


  • Thank you! I knew about fediseer but wanted to know more battle tested and technical solutions (if there were any) like, idk, having some kind of fail2ban but not so low level

    Didn’t know about threativore, nice

    Still weird we don’t have yet an automod directly into lemmy lol

    (And I still get negative number of posts because of the deleted ones :D)(and they still have some cache like user should be able to restore their stuff, they shouldn’t)





  • ex_06@slrpnk.nettoSelf-hosting@slrpnk.netAn invitation to agree
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    proposed by different people

    English speakers internet literate so we would have already cut down most of the world

    then we help each other within our limited means

    So it doesn’t solve the problem that is the fact that the richer(s? 🤔) need to pay for the lasts and we would be just in a worse situation than now (at least here in Europe would be much worse than status quo, in US idk)

    The system I propose applies to everyone who agrees, without geographic bounds. You pick and choose the agreements that you believe in, and therefore the people you want to associate with, and the way in which you want to associate with them. It’s consent vs coercion.

    Yep I got this part right and I’ve also had the same idea in the past. But never tried to implement it because of the stuff we already saying + if someone is already paying 40% of their income in taxes how would they live agreeing to another set of law for another 40% of the remaining? Either all reclaiming some sort of indipendence from their country (and now we asking people much more than just following the rules, but to live as outlaws in their countries) or idk living with almost no income. Reclaiming land by grouping in an area and slowly taking political control by consent still looks more realistic and less dangerous to me (but it requires people to move and looks like no one wants that lol)

    maybe even a nuclear exchange

    People that want this could agree on this and could be the people that have the power to do that while us agreeing on not doing this with 0 power over them, for example. Or just most of the world agreeing on “there may be only 2 genders and 2 only” and stuff like this :o

    I find myself wishing to exclude me and my people from the system but that would be just a way to protect us during the future events, not to actually change the world

    Btw check out the, I think abandoned, basisproject.net in the meanwhile; also circles basic income


  • i kinda agree on everything and i also think about social networks with a positive outcome quite a lot myself so i’ve read it interested in the topic. The main issue is the old ‘‘the devil lies in the details’’.

    sharing agreemement, easy; sharing them with technology, easy; creating communities around those agreements, kinda easy and so on. What’s the hardest bottleneck? actually recreating a whole legislation of agreements. All of this stuff doesn’t require a single platform, we already live deep down a form of this social network governed by game theory. Every platform we use every app every club we go to every group have implicit agreements.

    So the question is: does making them explicit help or not?

    My answer is… Not really. We have rules everywhere, also on this lemmy instance. I wrote them kinda carefully to be based on easily agreeable principles and to set a tone and, most of all, to be brief. Having agreements for everything goes against being brief and easily agreeable. The skii example is a good one: what if i don’t skii? i just don’t partecipate in the agreement and so weaken the power of those who do? What if all poor people agree on universal healthcare but rich people don’t? This brings us to the part of ‘‘convincing people to agree’’ and so we are just making politics from scratch again.

    I think this comment is a bit chaotic but i’ll try to make a tldr: a platform like that would be overhead and in some cases also dangerous; we need to raise the common ground by talking to people, there are no tech tools to hack this (no, AI could just parrot an emphatic leader, can’t actually choose the words to connect to the person we have in front of). We can’t escape the political spade work :O

    p.s. i also have on my mind to write a blog post about this, how people keep trying to solve the moderation problem with tech instead of just making it sustainable to resolve it socially