makeasnek

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 , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

Bitcoin solves this. The 1 BTC you have today will always be 1 BTC which will always be the same portion of supply. How much that BTC buys you will change over time, but the portion of supply will always remain the same. And if the last 15 years are any indication, it will generally buy you more over time. Meanwhile, your fiat currency increases supply by 2-3% per year in “good” years.

BTC has kept to its fiscal promise or a fixed supply and reliable transactions for 15 years. Bitcoin has a market cap of 850 billion dollars, which places it in the top 25 countries by GDP. Bigger than Sweden or Israel. It is decentralized and not run by any country but by a protocol enforced by tens of thousands of computers all over the globe. With Lightning, you can send an international transaction in under a second for under a penny in fees. You can do that with a smartphone and halfway reliable internet access. It works in warzones, it works in international waters (with satellite internet), it works everywhere. It doesn’t care what your credit score is or whether or not your authoritarian government likes Bitcoin or not. No middlemen, no bank holidays, and it does this for < 1% of global electricity usage, mostly from renewables and “stranded supply”.

makeasnek , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

I’m not a bot, I just see things differently than you. I think Bitcoin and blockchain generally will lead us to a more efficient, more peaceful world where people have more financial and political autonomy. I think things will look different (in a better way) when our underlying currency supply is not inflationary. Most economists disagree.

after all the existences Bitcoin and it’s offspawns must have ruined, them not having provided any tangible benefits to humanity in the process, how can one still argue it could ever do anything good as a replacement for money.

When people talk about negative associated with crypto, as I’m sure you know, 99% of the time they are talking about stuff that is not Bitcoin. Most of the scams in the crypto space fall apart with the slightest scrutiny. Many of the most notable scams have little to do with crypto at all. FTX was a classic ponzi scheme, most of which have been done with fiat currency, yet we do not blame the US dollar for Bernie Madoff’s existence. Exchange collapses are bad, I agree, which is why I always advise people to not store significant funds on exchanges. Those exchanges need to be better regulated/have better oversight and transparency. Any time you have a third party store funds for you, whether they are a bank or exchange, there is a risk they will rug you. There are also risks associated with self-custody. That is for each person to weigh and decide. The US and Europe have had fairly stable banking systems the past 100 years or so, which is a historical anomaly, but most countries are not so fortunate, and it’s not like the EU and US banking system have not had their own collapses, rugs, and other issues. I would go so far to say that fiat currency is also a scam, just one we have come to accept as legitimate. It is designed to lose value over time, it fails the basic function a currency is supposed to provide, which is as a store of value when you sell your labor or goods so that you can then use that value to purchase something equally valuable from somebody else. That functionality doesn’t happen if your currency lost value due to supply inflation. We have the state control currency because they were the most stable institution ever created by humanity, so they were our best option. Satoshi changed all that.

As far as utility? I think the market cap speaks for itself, so does investment by major investment firms and banks. I can send money to anybody on planet earth with a cell phone for less than a penny in fees. The transaction settles instantly. It doesn’t matter whether or not they have access to a stable banking system or if my bank/country has an agreement with their bank/country to enable the efficient transfer of funds. I can do it from my couch instead of M-F 9-5 and I don’t even have to wait in line at a bank branch. That’s powerful utility right there. I sent Bitcoin to Ukraine’s government when the war started so they could buy weapons and whatever else they needed. That would have been a slow, expensive nightmare to do with bank wires. My bank likely wouldn’t have even let me send money to a country at war since the receiving bank couldn’t guarantee liquidity in exchange. DAOs are powerful ways to change the way we organize society. I help run a non-profit bounty program for open-source projects, people donate to it with crypto, which is much easier to do on an international scale when we don’t need to involve the conventional, slow, convoluted international banking system. We can use those crypto donations to fund open source tools for scientific research. There are many points of utility.

Small countries are now experimenting with Bitcoin because it gives them a way to have a reasonably stable currency without becoming subservient to the US. Before Bitcoin, their options were to manage their own currency which they lack the stability to do or become subject to the whims of a foreign government. Likewise, in some parts of the world, women cannot legally have a bank account. But they can have a phone and run Bitcoin on it. Granted, that would be illegal for them too, but it is at least possible whereas there is no bank that would agree to open an account for them. That’s a different kind of utility than the kind I get out of it, but a relevant form. Bitcoin can be a powerful tool against tyrants and dictatorships, a way to “opt out” of the monetary system that keeps them in power.

I find Bitcoin useful, you may not, that is your choice. I have used it in everyday transactions, I have bought and sold goods and services with it. Since I have started making an effort to prioritize using it, I have been surprised how many places will accept it for payment. Much of crypto is hot garbage or outright scams, even if the technology itself has great potential. Crypto exchanges and stablecoins are not to be trusted. That said, Bitcoin has kept its fiscal promises to me and all of its users for 15 years. There’s no reason to expect that to change in the next 15, as long as computers still run the protocol, it will execute itself faithfully. The protocol works, you can use it to send coins from point A to point B. Whether or not you or society or whoever find that useful is not up to me.

makeasnek , 3 months ago

I will always upvote Firefox 😎😎😎

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 (edited 3 months ago)

Good. I don’t use TikTok and never will, but the government shouldn’t be able to tell you what kind of speech you listen to, what speech you make, or what platforms you use to communicate it. This is some 1984 shit. Looking forward to Trump banning every app except Truth social because we opened the door to this nonsense and all the other apps are spreading “anti-christian hate speech” or “anti-american-first propaganda”. Fuck the CCP. But also fuck the government trying to restrict speech.

makeasnek , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

Yes, I too would love the US president to decide which social media platforms I am allowed to legally use and who I can legally communicate with. I’m so scared China is going to, checks notes, influence my opinion that I’m willing to sacrifice my free speech rights in the process. Regulate me harder, daddy! 😍

makeasnek , 3 months ago

Your defense is “some other dictatorship does it, so that doesn’t concern me?”. Saying things are OK because the CCP or Putin does them is a very slippery slope.

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

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

makeasnek , 3 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 desci.world

makeasnek OP , 3 months ago

Yes. And I have experienced this on dishwashers that don’t have filters as well.

makeasnek OP , 3 months ago

I’ve been wondering if it might be a water hardness/softness things. I’ve experienced this in several different cities, but it’s possible they all had either hard or soft water.

makeasnek OP , 3 months ago

Now this is a suggestion I haven’t heard before, thank you I will look into this!

makeasnek , 3 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 , 3 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 , 3 months ago

!boinc if I am donating GPU power to science research. There is a BOINC client for Linux but packaging is a hot mess (though getting better) and compatibility with graphics drivers is hit-or-miss. So any crunching rigs I have w/ GPUs all run Windows.

makeasnek , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

Do not use openshot. Really bad bugs that will make it impossible to export your project and make all your time working with it wasted. Use kdenlive instead

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 lemmy.ml/post/11570081

makeasnek , 4 months ago

The fact that Linux lacks a decent system-level backup tool with a GUI is kind of a mind boggler for me. The best one I’ve found which gets close to this is timeshift. File-level backups can’t restore your whole system state and users shouldn’t be expected to remember or manually export their package lists and god knows what else. I have subsisted on file-only backups but it’s really not great as a solution. Disks fail, and when they do, you inevitably have to reinstall the entire OS. It’s a mess. RAID1 could theoretically prevent this, but no distro makes it easy to boot from a RAID1 setup.

Backing up the entire filesystem is not a technically complex thing, there are plenty of command-line tools to do this and some filesystems even support this concept via snapshots etc. But this has yet to be put into a useful practice for end users.

makeasnek , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

I would be interested in this as a user and as a dev for OSS projects. I currently donate to a few projects via OpenCollective, Github sponsors, etc. A few options:

• Users vote on how the money is spent, perhaps in proportion to how much they have donated over time. I think this is the simplest model that prevents self-dealing and accurately transmits user interest. You could use a quadratic funding model to better represent user interest instead of just giving the most vote weight to the users with the most money. On the other hand, assigning vote weight based on donations over time incentivizes users to donate more and keep donating (stopping a recurring donation could result in loss of vote weight and help redistribute vote weight as users become less active). You could also do a hybrid model: 50% is assigned according to vote weight based on total donations, 50% is assigned based on quadratic funding.
• Developers vote on how the money is spent. I don’t know how to allocate vote weight here. Devs should also submit a list of downstream libraries which would receive donations. (or is it upstream?).
• User and developers both vote on how it is spent. Vote weight could be distributed however, for example, 50% to users 50% to devs.

This kind of a system would be very possible to implement as a DAO, there are templates out there for making an organization like this. You could use BTC or ETH, both support DAOs. The benefit there is that since no single entity holds the money, no single entity has to file taxes and claim that money as income. It also automates the voting process and solves the issue of users having to trust a single person or organization to hold and distribute the funds. Making a DAO on Bitcoin lightning could reduce tx fees to less than a penny per donation.

You could also incorporate it as a non-profit depending on your jurisdiction. Many organizations like the Linux foundation have pursued this route, look at what things they have tried and what has worked. Also just a link to leave here for your research, I’m not suggesting you use this, I’m just saying it’s relevant interesting thinking in this area: blog.obyte.org/kivach-cascading-donations-for-git…

Other relevant links/research for you: github.com/Resolvr-io and nostrocket.org/About

Also research Gitcoin, they have used quadratic funding to fund a number of OSS web3 projects in a similar manner to what you’re proposing. I have participated in a few of their funding rounds as a donor and a recipient. Their interface is a mess but the concept is cool.

makeasnek , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

The discussion portion wouldn’t happen over BTC, that’s just for funds management and voting. Discussion could happen on a forum, lemmy community, matrix chat, discord hangout, or other space. I suggest BTC because with smart contracts you can automate the voting process among stakeholders and make it so you don’t need to trust any single party to hold onto the money. It solves this exact problem of coordinating financial transactions with multiple people who can’t trust each other. It also solves the “how do we accept donations internationally easily” problem. Bitcoin has a market cap which places it in the top 25 countries by GDP, higher than Sweden. 850 billion dollars. On average, adoption and market cap grows year on on year. It may not be the USD, but it’s already more widely accepted than most national currencies.

Re: kivach, it’s not more widely used because many people don’t know about it, it’s using a lesser known cryptocurrency as a base, and people reflexively go “eew crypto” even though it’s perfect for solving these kinds of problems. Anytime you have a distributed decision-making process that needs to be international and you don’t want to trust a single party or parties to manage that system, crypto is good at solving that problem. Most people know it for solving that problem in the realm of currency production and decentralizing finance, but it has much broader implications in terms of anywhere you have distributed decision making. Note that kivach doesn’t have any kind of distributed decision making or voting, it’s basically just a smart contract bot that distributes coins based on github dependencies.

Bringing the state into this just brings us a bunch of problems and no solutions. For one, every state or block of states has different currency, and for every state whose population you want to participate, you have to some how bridge access to that state’s banking system and incorporate it into the system. And you can’t do it in a decentralized way, so you need some legal entity to be formed to handle all this and the staff to do all this. So that’s a nightmare. State-backed currencies can’t easily or cheaply be transmitted electronically across borders, and often, even within the same country. Or you have to use some third-party service like PayPal or Venmo to do this, which is its own set of complications. More nightmare. Plus, hello fees and making microtransactions prohibitively expensive. And that’s just moving funds from A to B, that’s not even getting into managing the voting system and navigating the laws every single country whose currency you use, each of which are going to have their own interpretation of whether or not your voting system is compliant with their legal system and whether or not they agree that funding a project like the Tor project is allowed. You may say you don’t care what Turkeys laws say, but if you want to maintain a bridge to their banking system, you have to. So that’s what incorporating the state and fiat system brings you. Or, you could write a smart contract once and have the administration of this system run automatically forever and be available to anyone in any country automatically. Running an international organization which receives funds, holds funds, votes on how to distribute those funds, distributes those funds is exactly the kind of thing blockchain excels at.

makeasnek , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

I think you can still have users decide which projects get funding and have the system/organization/smart contract/etc automatically distribute funds to the libraries those projects depend on. 80% to the project, 20% to the libraries, etc.

If we let devs decide which projects get funding, they’re just going to always pick their own project. Since that doesn’t align with what users want, users won’t want to donate. If you want users to donate, you need to let them have some say in what their projects their donations go to.

makeasnek , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

If you are going to “be your own bank” you need some very basic computer security skills like:

• Research the reputation of the wallet you are going to use.
• Don’t download wallets which aren’t open source
• Download wallets from their official dev site, not some third party repo.
• Don’t use Facebook search to find a wallet.
• If you are storing significant funds, use a multi-sig wallet.
• If you are not 100% confident in the security of a given wallet or system, send a smaller test transaction first before sending larger amounts

If you can’t be trusted to do that, you need to pick a trusted custodian to manage access to your funds (you know, like banks), preferably somebody who can get an insurance company to under-write your no-opsec-having-ass. Unfortunately, in the crypto world, these trusted custodians few and far between and have a terrible track record with exchange collapses etc. It’s getting better, but it’s still a mess. Hopefully as time goes on and the industry gets better regulated and more mature, this will be an easier thing to do.

makeasnek , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

On the other hand, Snapchat absolutely should be liable for its recommendation algorithms’ actions.

Should they though? The algorithm can be as simple as “show me the user with the most liked posts”. Even the best design algorithm is going to make suggestions that users connect with sex offenders because the algorithm has no idea who is a sex offender. Unless snapchat has received an abuse report of some kind of actively monitors all accounts all the time, they have no way to know this user is dangerous. Even if they did monitor the accounts, they won’t know the user is dangerous until they do something dangerous. Even if they are doing something dangerous, it may not be obvious from their messages and photos that they are doing something dangerous. An online predator asking a 12 year old to meet them somewhere looks an awful lot like a family member asking the same thing assuming there’s not something sexually suggestive in the message. And requiring that level of monitoring is extremely expensive and invasive. It means only big companies with teams of lawyers can run online social media services. You can say goodbye to fediverse in that case, along with any expectation of privacy you or anybody else can have online. And then, well, hello turnkey fascism to the next politician who gets in power and wants to stifle dissent.

Kids being hurt is bad. We should work to build a society where it happens less often. We shouldn’t sacrifice free, private speech in exchange or relegate speech only to the biggest, most corporate, most surveilled platforms. Because kids will still get hurt, and we’ll just be here with that many fewer liberties. Let’s not forget that the US federal government has a list of known child sex offenders in the form of Epstein’s client list and yet none of them are in prison. I don’t believe that giving the government more control and surveillance over online speech is going to somehow solve this problem. In fact, it will make it harder to hold those rich, well-connected, child rapist fucks accountable because it will make dissent more dangerous to engage in.

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 lemmy.ml/post/11570081

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 lemmy.ml/post/11570081

makeasnek , 4 months ago

Read the first bullet point:

• Relay/instance admins can choose which content goes through their relay on either platform

makeasnek , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

A relay admin controls what goes through their relay. A user controls who they follow and who follows them. If you want, you can just auto-ignore all DMs directed to you by people who aren’t in your follow list. Also remember that your DMs have to come through a relay, presumably you are connected to relays you trust the moderation policy of, so toxic users can’t use those relays to DM you.

makeasnek , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

Because you can choose which relays to connect to and you typically connect to multiple relays. This is all seamless. On Mastodon/fedi, an instance controls your entire view of the fediverse unless you make a separate account elsewhere and check it separately. You can’t follow or be followed by users or instances they block even if you want to. They also control your identity, since it’s tied to a relay/instance. If your relay shuts down or your account gets banned, you have to make a new account elsewhere, re-follow everybody, get everybody to re-follow you, etc. It’s a mess.

On nostr, instance/relay admins only control that goes through their specific relay. Relay admins can, of course, share common blocklists if they want for anti-spam or anti-abuse purposes. If you want to follow somebody blocked by a relay, you are connected to other relays and the signal can flow through there. You don’t need to check multiple relays separately. If your relay closes, you don’t lose your account/identity.

makeasnek , 4 months ago

It’s just as scalable as fedi, I’d say it’s even more scalable since relays don’t need to communicate with each other, which reduces the cost to run a relay. The average user experience is basically identical. They download an app, it connects to a set of default relays (or they can choose some manually if they want), they tweet.

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

I believe so, yes.

makeasnek OP , 4 months ago

Damnit you’re right

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. 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.

makeasnek , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

It could be “bolted on” to the side, some people are working on that, but there are some very basic premises where they differ which make it difficult (such as an AP account being tied to an instance whereas a nostr account is not). It’s like asking “can email be intergrated with discord”. Well, yes, kinda, but it’s not going to be as smooth as if they used the same underlying protocol in the first place.