vacuumflower

just not as “smartphone friendly” and doomscroll-enabled, due to the format.

Boowahahahahaha, I've used those with PSP default web browser. With Nintendo Wii web browser. With Java phone web browser (admittedly that was only to read, and very slowly).

Anyway, have clumsy sweaty big fingers (unfortunately due to my behavior girls don't extrapolate that feature anywhere anymore), strongly prefer anything with physical keys.

They also had protomeme culture before that was a thing - aka “embedded image macros”.

Images, links, enormous smilies' sets, colored text.

Be the change you want to see in the world

offtopic: The house being Normandy? Then Brits still keep a piece of the fence, as a symbol. Channel Islands meaning.

It's really inconsequential why they want this. Their success means endgame.

The actions have consequences, and whether I'm breaking a window with a hammer to check how fragile it is or to go outside, it will have both those consequences.

We can see the corrosive effects that social media is having on society, there are countries actively working to make the problem worse but we have no tools to stop them.

You can have "disinformation and extremism" campaigns with only presenting truth or things posted by real people. Just like with political representation. Representatives are a subset of citizenry. The visible posts are a subset of all things posted. Except you can pick any subset you want, if you, say, classify posts by emotion and people by political alignment and what not.

One can have so much more believable bots today, that they won't be distinguishable from people, but those are beneficial as pressure, making the situation clear for normies, - with transparent identities of people, signing and globally addressing posts, you wouldn't fear bots and you wouldn't need a digital ID to access a website. And additionally you would have a way to double check the "color" of recommendations you get.

Thus the solutions they are picking are stabilizing the "disinformation and extremism" environment. With today's bots it will soon be utterly visibly useless to communicate over social media without what I've described. Which means, superficially paradoxically but really not, an end to such campaigns' efficiency.

So the claim of this helping fight such campaigns I have disproved.

I understand the situation, but they’re trying to go around the democratic process by not talking about the problems.

There's no "situation". "Situations" develop much faster. Such a "situation" didn't transpire in the early 00s Internet, despite plenty of people in it and no identities and regulation.

What "situation" would really look like, I have described - herds of LLM bots infesting social media, which would be beneficial for propaganda of a small amount of interested powerful parties, but will just make social media sour when everyone uses such. Which is fine, there is a technical solution, they just don't like it. They want the "situation" they describe, but in their favor. It's very convenient, a weapon evil useless jerks didn't have for a long time.

OK, I'm in Russia and don't affect anything. You protest, I'll cheer.

Something similar when using an operating system from Google and Apple, known for their attachment to privacy and noble behavior?

In any case, you can't have a mesh with ends reachable at all times or even addressed. Delay-tolerant applications are sort of better. With nodes synchronizing when in contact. Except for, say, threaded discussions to make sense, this would almost require some sort of dependency management, to synchronize objects by priority.

But honestly all of today's computing seems authoritarian and imperial. Which leads to the way it shapes the world. Richard Stallman is known for being worried about this (not many other people), but GNU + Hurd is honestly still in the same paradigm.

I wonder if it's possible to devise something like BTRON, except with program objects being similar to Java assemblies, but at the same time more like Common Lisp. For the commonly used software to be generally easily hackable\changeable. BTRON in its concept is nicer than Unix, it's a consistent idea for modernity of computing, one can say. It seems even nicer than Plan 9. Unfortunately I don't know Japanese to play with it.

Something that could be used on weak and cheap enough hardware to have some separate niche of personal\PDA computing based on it. Like Briar, but.

Things like CJDNS and Yggdrasil surely look nice, but those just change one layer. For a real totalitarian world they won't help. It's not even a matter of technology, it's a matter of links' capability when you can't use the Internet because, ahem, you'll be detected and police will come knocking.

I dunno, maybe because some of them are still used in other places, or for other purposes =\

It's unfortunately not quite dead - the Internet is scraped and not anonymous, but pseudonymous, and a bearer of a pseudonym can usually be discovered. If someone really wants it, of course.

But that's a good thought, maybe it's time for a few new names.

Yeah, and not with the guy who after saying something outta their ass went straight to insults.

Also why do you care? If you don't, why did you write this?

Also Dunning-Krueger is strong with everyone, that's what follows from that study.

If you mean that you have achieved something in some specific thing IRL and think I have no similar achievement, then (suppose you're right, most likely true) your achievement is in that specific thing only, and doesn't make you one bit more qualified to talk about anything else.

There are some super interesting videos of a physicist / chemist going over the basics of the chemistry involved and implications of it, I can send those if you’re interested

Interested.

Yet people would call me an insecure creepy troll if I said I have dozens of different nicknames on the same general spaces.

There's something unpleasantly psychopathic in emotion about BtVS, but this one moment was funny.

You may think whatever you want, you don't even need to have negative feelings about it.

But you've got no clue at all.

You say you live in Russia. What good does that right do if your holy leader decides that he doesn’t like what you posted online and sends you to the front in Ukraine or into a Gulag? Are you going to tell the military police that they can’t touch you because you got rights?

It'll just be a violated right. As that's treated always.

And you don't seem to understand that when "right" is treated as a thing separate from "law", arguments functional against "law" are not arguments functional against "right".

But even in a precedent-based system: Precedent means jack squat if the country’s leadership doesn’t care, as seen by the US.

Which doesn't change if it's a right or not. It's in the word. You are either in the right or in the wrong. If you're in the right, that doesn't guarantee you anything in the physical world. That's the point of such an entity.

And having these “rights” means absolutely nothing in real-life terms if there’s no mechanism to enforce them or get any benefit from it.

Wrong. Having a common frame of reference means a lot as a precondition for other things.

Say, having a program supporting some Kademlia-based protocol doesn't guarantee you to find other nodes supporting it, or to find a file or other resource you look for on them, or that someone won't block it. But it's better than if people can't agree on any protocol, but, suppose, MS and Apple can.

I think you shouldn't treat things you don't understand so arrogantly.