makeasnek

makeasnek OP , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

Except they already made Oracle handle all that and they can easily legislate privacy protections without banning TikTok entirely. And, again, it is my right as a citizen to install whatever app I want even if it is spying on me, just like the rest of my apps do. I could film every second of my life and put it up on Facebook or a personal website and the Chinese government could watch it and there's not a damned thing the US government can do about it.

makeasnek OP , 3 months ago

They are all examples of speech platforms the government targeted because they disagreed with what they were publishing. Because of the precedent set in those situations, the government has even more latitude to prosecute even more speech they don't agree with. The basis of the TikTok ban is literally it's "foreign propaganda". Propaganda is just "stuff the government doesn't want you to hear". The right to hear things the government doesn't want you to hear is one of the most basic rights of human expression. Not just in the US, but in the UN Charter on human rights as well.

Fear of "foreign influence"? You would find that exact argument being made by the Soviet Union to block US films and books in their country. You would find that exact argument being used in China to block internet access. You would find that exact argument being made in Iran to stop the discussion of homosexuality.

makeasnek OP , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

Since when is reading newspapers your government doesn't agree with a right? Since when is communicating with people your government doesn't like a right? Since when is publishing whatever you want a right? Since approximately 1776. It's such an important right that it's literally the first one in the constitution. Because our ability to speak freely and criticize the government is one of the rights that underpins all others. The medium shouldn't matter, speech is speech whether it's an app, website, chat server, newspaper, bulletin board, code, painting, drawing, whatever. If the government can just shut down any medium or venue they don't like because "it's propaganda", that basically closes the door to any open criticism of the government.

We've tried not having those rights for the sake of convenience, expediency, or social pleasantness. Tends to not end well. Ask people in Russia or Iran how that "government gets to dictate where and how you speak" thing is going for them. Insane bootlicking going on in this thread.

makeasnek OP , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

Who are they worried China is going to influence? Children, right? If it's adults, that's almost more insulting, they think we don't deserve to be able to see all sides of an argument and are too stupid to discern fact from fiction. We may as well dispense with free expression entirely at that point because the government can just say "you're too stupid to read this and we're worried you'll be influenced, so you can only read the books we've pre-approved for you"

It is every American's right to think freely, to speak those thoughts to others, and to have others have the opportunity to hear those thoughts whether or not they are "good influences" according to govt. It is wild how easily people are willing to throw that right away for fears of "foreign influence". What's next, banning TV shows from foreign countries because they might "corrupt our culture"? Banning books with subversive topics because they will "give people bad ideas"?. This is how the road to fascism begins.

makeasnek OP , 3 months ago

The govt can do anything it wants to punch back so long as it's not infringing on the rights of its citizens. Our plan to stop China from "influencing us" is to... become more like China?

makeasnek OP , 3 months ago

If China is going prevent US companies from doing profitable business within its economic borders I don’t see why the US should allow Chinese companies to engage in profitable businesses ventures within its country.

1. They get to do whatever they want because they're a dicatorship. Saying the US government should be allowed to do something "because China does it" is a real slippery slope. 2. We aren't talking about oil extraction or car sales here, we're talking about something which is explicitly a speech platform. They are different.

It's not just a "company" being banned, it's the government telling you that you can't use that companies services for your speech. Imaging the US government banning the The Guardian because it's not owned by US citizens. That's the same thing as banning TikTok because it's not owned by US Citizens. The government has no right to ban newspapers or websites which are otherwise engaging in legally-protected speech. You have a right to hear what they have to say.

makeasnek OP , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

Good point. We are all vulnerable to manipulation and should only read content that is approved by the US Govt. Anybody who breaks this rule should go to jail. That is for our safety ✅

makeasnek OP , 3 months ago

Rules for thee not for me

makeasnek OP , 3 months ago

Except it’s not, it’s an ad platform.

Right. So if they sell ads on it, it's not a speech platform right? Reddit, not a speech platform? The Washington Post? The Guardian? Lemmy, when lemmy instances start running ads, Not a speech platform? Gmail? Not a speech platform?

Nope, absolutely incorrect, it is indeed just a company being banned.

It's not. This isn't a company that sells cars, they provide an online speech platform. It's my ability to use the speech platform that gets banned in the process. They can ban TikTok from being able to "do business" in the US, that is different from pulling it from the app store or installing a great firewall to prevent US citizens from accessing their site. And frankly, "doing business" has been an inherent part of speech platforms for decades, selling advertising on speech platforms is how they can exist, all the way back to the days of newspapers and radio.

makeasnek OP , 3 months ago

"You can't use this at work" and "You can't use this ever" are very different things.

makeasnek OP , 3 months ago

I joined this instance at random, look at my history if you think I'm a tankie.

makeasnek OP , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

China did that. We criticized them for it. Now we're turning around and doing it. "We should get to do it because insert dictator here does it" isn't a great argument.

makeasnek OP , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

Yep. Unfortunately both the left and right in the US seem to have free speech in their crosshairs one way or another. The right with "don't say gay", their book bans, and war on drag, the left with the TikTok ban, wanting the government to be able to define and regulate "misinformation" on social media, etc. The long-term protectors of free speech like the ACLU have even done a pivot away from free speech cases because they perceive them as unpopular.

makeasnek , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

I use it on a regular basis. I also run a non-profit that funds open source tools for scientists, it makes accepting donations a lot easier for us among other benefits for our donors (they don't have to pay capital gains on the coins they donate, just like stocks).

Bitcoin is pretty incredible and offers decent anonymity which continues to improve, Monero offers more. Lots of scams in the "crypto world", but Bitcoin has faithfully kept its fiscal policy promises for 15 years:

• Fixed supply of 21 million coins. Your money's value is not diluted by supply inflation.
• You can send funds to anybody in the world with a smartphone and a halfway reliable internet connection in under a second for pennies in fees (with Bitcoin lightning). And you can do it from your couch, no banks required.
• It has operated 24/7, 365 days a year for 15 years without a single hour of downtime, bank holiday, or hack, and has survived attacks from many angles including nation-state actors.
• At every possible turn it has chosen decentralization and security. I can't say the same for most other coins.
• And it has done this with < 1% of global electricity usage, mostly from renewables and other "stranded" supply. Pretty powerful stuff.

Monero's privacy features can be absorbed into the Bitcoin protocol whenever Bitcoin decides it wants to, that is the biggest long-term risk to Monero IMO. That and centralization of block production due to increased block size. Bitcoin worked around this block size problem with L2s like lightning, Monero chose bigger blocks though of course it could always add an L2 if it wants to.

makeasnek , 3 months ago

Wait till you hear about stocks and derivatives. No way are they ever gonna make it big time. Only used by sleazeballs trying to get rich.

makeasnek , 3 months ago

It's more complicated than this, and it gets more complicated every year, especially with lightning. It's certainly not monero in terms of privacy, but it's not the same Bitcoin it was 10 years ago where this was more or less true.

makeasnek , 3 months ago

Not with L2s like Bitcoin lightning. Your fees come in under a penny in most cases and are not tied to chain space because they are not on chain. This is 100-1000x less than credit cards, for example.

makeasnek , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

Look up a network map of lightning, it's not centralized at all. Payments typically route through multiple hubs, just as many Bitcoin nodes may be involved in processing a main chain transaction. Anyone can run a lightning node, and you can choose which nodes you want to use, if you want. There are thousands of them to pick from.

The lightning channels are secured by the main chain. There is no centralized party who can rug you.

makeasnek , 3 months ago

There's lots of people who use the dollar and other currencies I don't like. But I still use the currency. Bitcoin has faithfully kept its fiscal policies and promises for 15 years. It's money whose supply can't be diluted through inflation. You can be your own bank. That has never changed. Whatever it originally promised, it's still doing.

makeasnek , 3 months ago

Fees with lightning (Bitcoin) are often under a penny per transaction and transactions settle instantly. Usability has come a long way here.

makeasnek , 3 months ago

There are ways to achieve significant privacy using Bitcoin, the protocol itself is pseudonymous, lightning in many ways enhances privacy. But you need to know what you are doing and there are many gotchas.

makeasnek , 3 months ago

How come every thread I see about this topic, there is nobody who is concerned about letting the federal government dictate which apps you can and cannot use to communicate with other people? This is some 1984 shit.

makeasnek , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

It did. With Bitcoin, anybody with a cell phone and halfway reliable internet access can send money globally in under a second for pennies in fees (with Bitcoin lightning). They can be their own bank without trusting any single third party. It doesn't matter if their country has secure banking infrastructure and it doesn't matter what their credit score is. There are countries on this planet where women aren't allowed to open bank accounts. Bitcoin doesn't give AF.

It has promoted and maintained the exact same fiscal policy for 15 years without a single hour of downtime or hack: a limited supply and a guarantee of your ability to transfer your coin to somebody else. No bank holidays, nobody devaluing your currency by increasing the supply. No having your savings robbed by an unstable central bank. It gives anybody in the world access to a currency that is already as stable or more stable than most national currencies. And it gives any country in the world an option aside from using USD and, inherently, losing some degree of autonomy in the process. There's a reason Ecuador and Argentina went in on it so hard.

People underestimate how big Bitcoin really is. It's market cap is 850 billion USD, that's the size of Sweden's GDP and puts it in the top 25 countries by GDP. On average, it has a trend of consistent growth year after year as adoption continues to increase. It is uncensorable, the US could decide to ban Bitcoin tomorrow, a gamma ray from space could blast half of the earth out of existence, and the next block would come regardless and the network would continue to function.

It does all this for around 1% of global electricity usage, mainly from renewables and is powering a new green revolution by being a "buyer of last resort" for power grids. This makes electricity cheaper for all other users of the grid as it's able to buy power when nobody else wants it, enabling power generation facilities to not lose money during times of low demand. This also makes it easier for grids to add renewable capacity. Bitcoin is a form of energy storage in that sense. Miners don't buy power during times of peak demand for price reasons, so it doesn't take power that anybody else would be using.

makeasnek , 3 months ago

And more scientific research accomplished if you donate your CPU cycles with !boinc !

makeasnek , 4 months ago

Y'all should know about BOINC. It's one of the world's largest distributed computing networks used for "volunteer computing" where people donate computing time to scientific research. It's federated/permissionless/open and anybody can create a BOINC project. !boinc

Also check out #DeSci, lots of people working on interesting incentive mechanisms to fix scientific publishing. There's a whole bunch of projects listed here http://desci.world/

makeasnek , 4 months ago

Hot take: there is no food safety reason to replace a sponge if it's still good at removing food from dishes. If you remove the food source, and the soap removes whatever is living on the dish, whatever is left over will die due to lack of nutrients and water. It's why in food safety courses you are taught that dishes have to dry completely. Even a sponge which has been used once will be depositing "new" pathogens onto the dish. Stuff is gonna live in the sponge. The sponge doesn't kill pathogens. Removal, soap, and desiccation do. The sponge's job is almost purely mechanical.

makeasnek , 4 months ago

Yep have done this for years. Cut a corner off a sponge each time it enters its next life phase so you can easily identity the phase it's in by the way it looks.

makeasnek , 4 months ago

Nostr vs Mastodon on Privacy & Autonomy:

• Relay/instance admins can choose which content goes through their relay on either platform
• On nostr, your DMs are encrypted. In Mastodon, the admin of the sender and receiver can read them, as can anybody else who breaks into their server
• On nostr, a relay admin can control what goes through their relay, but they can't stop you from following/DMing/being followed by whoever you want since you are typically connected to multiple relays at once. As long as one relay allows it, signal flows. Nostr provides the best of both worlds: moderated "public squares" according to your moderation preferences, autonomy to follow/dm/be followed by anybody you want (assuming that individual user hasn't blocked you).
• On mastodon, your identity is tied to your instance. If your instance goes down, you lose your follow/followee list, DMs, etc. On Nostr, it's not, so this doesn't happen. Mastodon provides some functionality to migrate identity between instances but it's clunky and generally requires to have some form of advanced notice.
• Both have all the same functions as twitter: tweet, reply, re-tweet, DM, like, etc.

Why I think nostr will win https://lemmy.ml/post/11570081

makeasnek , 4 months ago

Hardware signing devices have lots of utility because they keep the key from ever being on the machine (which is more likely to be compomised). Think ledger or trezor for your Bitcoin. Hardware encryption devices are just really expensive and black-box ways to avoid Veracrypt.

If your encryption algorithm is secure, you have no use for automatic lock-out. If it's not, automatic lockout won't do much against an attacker with physical access to the device. Unless they are dumb enough to trigger the lockout AND the internal memory wipes itself sufficiently well AND/OR the attacker doesn't have the resources to reverse engineer the device.

makeasnek , 4 months ago

Nostr vs Mastodon on Privacy & Autonomy:

• Relay/instance admins can choose which content goes through their relay on either platform
• On nostr, your DMs are encrypted. In Mastodon, the admin of the sender and receiver can read them, as can anybody else who breaks into their server
• On nostr, a relay admin can control what goes through their relay, but they can't stop you from following/DMing/being followed by whoever you want since you are typically connected to multiple relays at once. As long as one relay allows it, signal flows. Nostr provides the best of both worlds: moderated "public squares" according to your moderation preferences, autonomy to follow/dm/be followed by anybody you want (assuming that individual user hasn't blocked you).
• On mastodon, your identity is tied to your instance. If your instance goes down, you lose your follow/followee list, DMs, etc. On Nostr, it's not, so this doesn't happen. Mastodon provides some functionality to migrate identity between instances but it's clunky and generally requires to have some form of advanced notice.
• Both have all the same functions as twitter: tweet, reply, re-tweet, DM, like, etc.

makeasnek , 4 months ago

Elections matter. Elections decide who gets to appoint judges (or you can directly elect judges depending on the court system). Being politically active in other ways matters too. Apathy doesn't work.

makeasnek , 4 months ago

Putting it on the blockchain ensures you can always go back and say "see, at this date/time, this key verified this file/hash".. If you know the key of the uploader (the white house), you can verify it was signed by that key. Guatemala used a similar scheme to verify votes in elections using Bitcoin. Could the precinct lie and put in the wrong vote count? Of course! But what it prevented was somebody saying "well actually the precinct reported a different number" since anybody could verify that on chain they didn't. It also prevented the precinct themselves from changing the number in the future if they were put under some kind of pressure.

makeasnek , 4 months ago

"Not everybody will use it and it's not 100% perfect so let's not try"

makeasnek , 4 months ago

It's been letting people be their own bank for 15 years. You can send transactions across the globe for pennies in fees which confirm instantly using Bitcoin lightning. The supply has remained capped at 21 million. It's doing exactly what it said it would do without a single hack or hour of downtime 24/7, 365.

makeasnek , 4 months ago

Except it's not. Lightning is incredibly decentralized, you can run a full lightning node on a raspberry pi. I have one running on my phone. Look up a graph of lightning network, looks just like any other decentralized system. Nodes you route through never have custody of your funds, unlike a bank.

makeasnek , 4 months ago

It can. Lightning transactions are as easy and lightweight to process as e-mail. They measure in the bytes or kb in size, no mining is required.

makeasnek , 4 months ago

Ethereum uses proof-of-stake, there is no "mining" in a traditional sense, so its power consumption is more akin to e-mail than mining crypto. But proof-of-stake leads to centralization over time, which is antithetical to what Bitcoin people want.

makeasnek OP , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

Background:

• In Mastodon/Lemmy/Kbin/ActivityPub, your identity is tied to your instance. So if your instance shuts down, you lose all your posts/followers/followees/subscriptions/DMs
• In Nostr, your identity is your public key so your relay can shut down and everything is fine since your identity isn't tied to your relay/instance.
• BlueSky's proposed solution to this is to have your username be yourname@somedomainyouown.com. Which requires buying a domain name, which are limited resources, costs >$10 per year, and requires manually configuring DNS records which is not fun.

makeasnek OP , 4 months ago

I believe so, yes.

makeasnek OP , 4 months ago

Damnit you're right

makeasnek , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

Sounds like somebody gave you some incorrect information re: banning.

• You don't need a w3c standard to have a protocol that is open source and used globally, it's just one way to go about that. You can also have standards which are not made through w3c but are made through some other governance body, or you can have standards where the standard just kind of evolves from a bunch of different devs trying different versions of things until there's one main way which floats to the top since everybody prefers it. Nostr has the NIP (Nostr improvement proposal) process which has been used to make standards for everything from video streaming to calendar events/invites.
• Relays on nostr, which are the equivalent to instances in ActivityPub/mastodon/lemmy can set their own moderation policies, defederate from other relays, etc all the same as in ActivityPub. The moderation abilities are the same. This means relays can choose what content they allow and ban users/topics/content from other relays, etc. The key difference is that you are by default connected to multiple relays. So if your relay blocks a user you really want to follow, you can keep following that user and see them in your feed, they just don't show up for other users on that relay. If a relay blocks you, you can't post content to that relay. So you get the best of both worlds: relays have curated, moderated public squares with trending hashtags and tweets while not reducing your ability to choose who to follow and who can follow you.
• Identity portability is another key feature: if your instance goes down, you don't lose all your DMs, followers, etc.

makeasnek , 4 months ago

It has an optional built-in tipping function where you can tip users (and receive tips) if you like their posts. Just like reddit had. Pretty cool imo but not required to use the platform.

makeasnek , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

Before we get into the weeds here, let's start with an important basic premise: Moderation ability, at a protocol level, from an instance/relay admin perspective in nostr and AP is identical.

Are there moderation tools to propagate bans across relays quickly?

Relay operators can share ban lists like they do in AP. Relay operators can only directly control their own relay, not other relays. I don't know the ins-and-outs of how the interface on the admin side looks, but at a protocol level, AP and Nostr offer the same abilities.

Some users need to be booted off the network entirely and swiftly sometimes, we’ve seen several cases of this in Lemmy already with users posting horrendous shit. I’d be concerned that one of my relays would lag on banning (timezone differences for moderators or whatever innocuous reason) and these users achieve their goal of more people seeing the shit they post. For some people this might trigger PTSD, which is why I say it would be a huge barrier to mass adoption until that issue is resolved.

Relays sharing ban lists help can solve this problem. I would argue that we don't want to give that power (to ban a user from the entire network) to a single relay admin or even a couple relay admins (since anybody can be a relay admin), so broad consensus of some form needs to exist OR sets of relays can form their own little networks of trust where they will automatically trust a ban from other admins in that network. A relay admin doesn't need to be able to ban somebody from the entire network if they simply disagree with that user's post, they can just ban the user on their own relay. There is value in having public squares with varying degrees of moderation, among other reasons, because laws about what kind of speech are acceptable vary country by country. There is value in having mainstream platforms which refuse to host some kinds of content and having that be a different moderation policy than the one used by the government, for example. Remember that legality and morality are not the same and that there are differences in what is illegal vs illegal in different jurisdictions. We don't want the legal standards of Russia or China to the legal standards the entire network has to follow.

If the user is doing something which is very illegal, which I believe you are referring to, that is a job for law enforcement. Neutral networks like the internet are traditionally policed "at the edges". We don't have gmail proactively filtering for objectionable or illegal content because of the consequences that come from that privacy invasion, false positives, additional computational load, reducing reliability of sending/receive between email carriers, etc. Comcast is not inspecting packets as they fly through their network at a the speed of light, delaying them, and determining if they should be passed or not. It's the internet, they just pass them through. Instead, we say "this is an open, neutral network and if you break the law, LEO will deal with it".

makeasnek , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

Worth mentioning here that Lemmy itself accepts donations in Bitcoin directly and via OpenCollective. Many instances do as well. Bitcoin is free, federated, open source software and protocol for money, it kinda makes sense that there's some crossover there. https://join-lemmy.org/crypto

If you want a platform with built-in tipping, especially a federated, open-source one, you can't use PayPal, the fees make microtransactions impossible. Same with basically every other competitor out there. You either need to make your own payment processor (millions of dollars, massive yearly overhead, you have to handle dispute resolution, you need to forge independent relationships with Visa/MC/Amex/Plaid/etc, transactions all have different settlement times sometimes measured in weeks, it's an absolute bird's nest of problems. And that's just to do it for the US.). And each instance would have to have their own payment processor. It's a nightmare. Or, simple idea, you can just use some type of cryptocurrency.

You choice to avoid it is yours alone, but it seems like a weird thing to be mad about and avoid social networks on the basis of. Do you have such strong reactions to other assets like stocks? Or other currencies? Would you not use Facebook because users could use Turkish Lira on it to pay for extra photo storage? I don't love the Turkish government, but it seems like a weird place to draw a line in the sand over which social networks I'll use.

If you don't like the Bitcoin feature, you don't have to use it. Bitcoin has a market cap that puts it in the top 25 countries by GDP. Higher than Sweden. It's been doing its thing for 15 years. People may say they don't like it, but if you decide to not use any platform or service which accepts or uses Bitcoin, your circle of places you can use is going to continue to get smaller. Have fun not shopping at Safeway or any other major grocery store since they all have Bitcoin ATMs in the form of Coinstars. Have fun not using mutual funds or other investment portfolios from major banks or index funds since they all have a degree of exposure to Bitcoin. Have fun not using cash app or other major payment platforms which feature some kind of Bitcoin integration. Have fun not being able to use the DMV in colorado where you can renew your license with Bitcoin, and you won't be able to ride public transit in Argentina. Bitcoin is global and adoption grows year on year.

"Crypto" is full of scams and rug pulls and bad actors. But Bitcoin has kept its promises to faithfully relay transactions without a single hack or day of downtime for 15 years. They are not the same.

makeasnek , 4 months ago

Yes very true!

makeasnek , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

There is no "delete a user from the internet" button. It doesn't exist. Even if a single admin could ban a user from entire network, which is giving immense amount of power to any admin, all that user has to do is make a new account to get around it. That's true for Nostr, AP, Twitter, Facebook, E-mail, etc. This is why spam exists and will always exist. AP or nostr or whoever isn't going to solve spam or abuse of online services, the best we can do it mitigate the bulk of it. Relays and instances can share ban lists in nostr or AP, that can be automated, that is the way to mitigate the problem. There is, however, a "delete a person from society" button we can press, and that is LEOs job. That, conveniently, also deletes them from the internet. It's just not a button we trust anybody but government to press. We do have a "delete a user from most of AP/Nostr" button in the form of shared blocklists.

As we get stronger and stronger anti-spam/anti-abuse measures, we make it harder and harder to join and participate in networks like the internet. This isn't actually a problem for spammers, they have a financial incentive, so they can pay people to fill out captchas and do SMS verifications and whatever else they need to do. All we do by increasing the cost to spam is change that kinds of spam are profitable to send. Other abuse of services that isn't spam have their own intrinsic motivations that may outweigh the cost associated with making new accounts. At a certain level of anti-spam mitigation, you end up hurting end users more than spammers. A captcha and e-mail verification blocks like 90% of spam attempts and is a very small barrier for users. But even that has accessibility implications. Requiring them to receive an SMS? An additional 10% but now you've excluded people who don't have their own cell phone or use a VoIP provider. You've made it more dangerous for people to use your service to seek help for things like addiction, domestic abuse, etc as their partner or family member may share the same phone. You've made it harder to engage in dissent against the government in authoritarian regimes. You've also made it much more difficult to run a relay, since running a relay now requires access to an SMS service, payment for that SMS service, etc. Require them to receive a letter in the mail? An additional 10% but now you've excluded people who don't have a stable address or mail access, etc. Plus now it takes a week to sign up for your website and that's even getting into apartment numbers and the complications you'd face there. For a listing to be placed on Google Maps, maybe a letter in the mail is a reasonable hurdle to have, after all, Google only wants to list businesses which have a physical address. For posting to twitter? It's pretty ludicrous.

I generally trust relay admins to make moderation decisions, otherwise I wouldn't be on their instance or relay on the first place. And my trust becomes extended to other admins they work with and share ban lists with. And that's fine. But remember that any person with any set of motivations can be a relay or instance admin. That person could be the very troll we are trying to prevent with this anti-spam or anti-abuse measures. What I don't trust is any random person on the internet being able to make moderation decisions for the entire internet. Which means that any approach to bans would need to be federated and built on mutual trust between operators.