I think we are on the precipice of something that Orwell would have never ¨seen coming. The system seems poised to pounce on anybody that deviates fr ¨the overton window. They no longer have to lock you up to silence you. Jus ¨ban you from all platforms. I think BBS and IRC's decentralized nature are ¨going to see these platforms explode in popularity soon. Thoughts?
nt, and the wave of , what many call "anarcho-tyranny", censorship ¨moves, brou
ht me back here. Where do you all see this going? The fact that ¨Twitter can de
latform the POTUS, whether you like him, or hate him as a ¨grifter, in coordina
ion with Apple and Google taking down his access to ¨alternative applications, >s very very concerning.
I think we are on the precipice of something that Orwell would have never ¨seen
coming. The system seems poised to pounce on anybody that deviates from ¨the ov
erton window. They no longer have to lock you up to silence you. Just ¨ban you >rom all platforms. I think BBS and IRC's decentralized nature are ¨going to see
these platforms explode in popularity soon. Thoughts?
I've been warning that turning big unaccountable silos into the main social media platforms of the world would bit us in the ass, but nobody ever listened
hahaha
Brandoniusrex wrote to All <=-
I think we are on the precipice of something that Orwell would have
never seen coming. The system seems poised to pounce on anybody that deviates from the overton window. They no longer have to lock you up to silence you. Just ban you from all platforms. I think BBS and IRC's decentralized nature are going to see these platforms explode in popularity soon. Thoughts?
Brandoniusrex wrote to All <=-
to silence you. Just ģban you from all platforms. I think BBS and IRC's decentralized nature are ģgoing to see these platforms explode in popularity soon. Thoughts?
Arelor wrote to Brandoniusrex <=-
I've been warning that turning big unaccountable silos into the main social media platforms of the world would bit us in the ass, but nobody ever listened hahaha
The BBS world is probably too "past technology" for most, and isn't
(yet) as mobile device friendly. However, BBSing might be one
technology that wouldn't be as easy for the tech companies to censor. I suspect that most folks who are worried about censorship are probably doing their communications over the "dark web" where big tech companies don't have such influence.
Interesting. I don't see BBS's hitting mainstream simply because they
are 'hobby' based. If there were an easy way for people to get to
message bases, maybe, but they have that now with different platforms
and such, but the "big three" have a monopoly of sorts, so it would
be hard to break through I think...
people using VPNs between BBSes (zeronet?) and using BINKP with TLS. I
The "leakage" of BBS content onto the web concerns me. A FTN network is only as secure as it's weakest link, and all it takes is for one networked board to allow read access to networked areas via HTTP to compromise the privacy of the entire net.
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Brandoniusrex <=-
The "leakage" of BBS content onto the web concerns me. A FTN
network is only as secure as it's weakest link, and all it takes
is for one networked board to allow read access to networked
areas via HTTP to compromise the privacy of the entire net.
Brandoniusrex wrote to All <=-
to silence you. Just ģban you from all platforms. I think BBS and IRC decentralized nature are ģgoing to see these platforms explode in popularity soon. Thoughts?
There are some interesting inroads to increase the privacy of BBSes, like people using VPNs between BBSes (zeronet?) and using BINKP with TLS. I think Synchronet IRC can use TLS now, too.
The "leakage" of BBS content onto the web concerns me. A FTN network is only as secure as it's weakest link, and all it takes is for one networked board to allow read access to networked areas via HTTP to compromise the privacy of the entire net.
... Wait, this is a *scene*?
I've been warning that turning big unaccountable silos into the main social media platforms of the world would bit us in the ass, but nobody ever listen hahaha
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Brandoniusrex <=-
Brandoniusrex wrote to All <=-
to silence you. Just oban you from all platforms. I think BBS and IRC's decentralized nature are ogoing to see these platforms explode in popularity soon. Thoughts?
There are some interesting inroads to increase the privacy of BBSes,
like people using VPNs between BBSes (zeronet?) and using BINKP with
TLS. I think Synchronet IRC can use TLS now, too.
The "leakage" of BBS content onto the web concerns me. A FTN network is only as secure as it's weakest link, and all it takes is for one
networked board to allow read access to networked areas via HTTP to compromise the privacy of the entire net.
Re: Our Brave New World
By: Arelor to Brandoniusrex on Sun Jan 10 2021 04:37 am
I've been warning that turning big unaccountable silos into the main soci media platforms of the world would bit us in the ***, but nobody ever lis hahaha
Ditto that, I started talking that way over a decade ago.
You can't apply your terms and service in such a way that violates constitutional rights either. If you want to do business in this country, an others, you have to do things a certain way, just like if you want to hire/f people... So I have hope and pray that people will figure this out again in time for my kids have a better life of true freedom like this country is SUPPOSED to stand for.
When society changes what is/isn't acceptable to adapt to their own politica agendas on a daily basis, this experiment doesn't work.
Thanks,
Zombie Mambo
-=+:[ The Zombie Zone BBS * hcow.dynu.net 61912 ]:+=-
There is a grand delusion that "First amendment protections apply only to ¨government, and if you don't like this sort of distributed anarchotyranny ¨censorship, build a new platform" on the right. Then, when they do, it jus ¨gets banned off of devices. Then it will be "Just build a new phone compan ¨and OS!". Then when Amazon bans them from the cloud that's needed for a si ¨of that scope, it's "well build your own cloud server farm.". Then it will ¨"Well build your own internet!" at some point. This notion that Platforms ¨do whatever they want and censor whomever just because they're not a ¨government HAS to end, or the very fabric of our society is going to crumb ¨and devolve to violent action of disenfranchised people striving to be hea ¨That's not the future I want. But, apparently, it's the future governments ¨want. I've been screaming this from the rooftops for years, but, everybody ¨too glued into their smartphones to see the writing on the wall... The pea ¨we've seen for decades is an anomaly. And one that we may sadly see comple ¨squashed through technocratic distributed censorship. All while the "left" ¨"critical" of big Capital, cheers it on every step of the way. Ironic, isn ¨it?
Interesting. I don't see BBS's hitting mainstream simply because they
are 'hobby' based. If there were an easy way for people to get to
message bases, maybe, but they have that now with different platforms
and such, but the "big three" have a monopoly of sorts, so it would
be hard to break through I think...
Gamgee wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Brandoniusrex <=-
The "leakage" of BBS content onto the web concerns me. A FTN
network is only as secure as it's weakest link, and all it takes
is for one networked board to allow read access to networked
areas via HTTP to compromise the privacy of the entire net.
Hasn't this already been happening for a long time? Every BBS that
has a web interface is allowing that right now, AFAICT.
One of the several reasons my board doesn't have that "feature"
enabled.
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Gamgee <=-
The "leakage" of BBS content onto the web concerns me. A FTN
network is only as secure as it's weakest link, and all it takes
is for one networked board to allow read access to networked
areas via HTTP to compromise the privacy of the entire net.
Hasn't this already been happening for a long time? Every BBS that
has a web interface is allowing that right now, AFAICT.
Not everyone, but there's a lot of them.
One of the several reasons my board doesn't have that "feature"
enabled.
There's a simple trick with Synchronet - whatever access the
guest user has is what unauthenticated web users will see. If
you're not logged in to my BBS, all you see are the sysop and
local general boards.
Anyway I digress, I'm way off subject here. I've just been wondering if a group of people wanted to make a computer network entirely outside of the internet how would you go about it given what is available today?
Interesting. I don't see BBS's hitting mainstream simply because they
are 'hobby' based. If there were an easy way for people to get to
message bases, maybe, but they have that now with different platforms
and such, but the "big three" have a monopoly of sorts, so it would
be hard to break through I think...
You can't apply your terms and service in such a way that violates constitutional rights either. If you want to do business in this country, and others, you have to do things a certain way, just like if you want to hire/fire people... So I have hope and pray that people will figure this out again in time for my kids have a better life of true freedom like this country is SUPPOSED to stand for.
BBS's will never be "mainstream" because there are no ads. Years ago some SysOps charged for their services and even that didn't work out. So yea, BBSing is a hobby because money isn't involved. If users would take the time to learn how to use a BBS I suspect they would be used more.
I also checked the complete list of "restriction" flags you can set on
a user account, and there is no apparent restriction that would
prevent a Guest user from seeing networked subs. There are several
I would not like to see BBSs go mainstream. Once something goes mainstream large corporate conglomerates find a way to bastardize it.
I also would not like to see BBBs be any more mobile friendly then they are now. The way I see it where there was once the one world labeled "cyberspace" there is now two: The computing world and the mobile world. On mobile platforms it takes only a few seconds to glance at a post,
judge it to be true, agree with it, and share it ... spreading it like a virus. If you have a thought, a wim, a complaint, you're just generally being a dick in the mobile world you can spread that hate in less than a minute. In the BBS world, if you can't hold that thought and care enough about it and think about it and analyze it long enough to get to a computer and log into a BBS to write about it then it's not worth
writing about. BBSes are great today because they are not mobile
friendly, they are not always "at our fingertips" and they are not on
the radar of entities like Apple and Google.
I have been thinking lately about the fact that we should probably try
to have other networks besides the internet. I was thinking about all those modems lying around collecting dust or rotting in landfills and
how for a breif period of time there were computer systems that were on the internet and those that weren't. Wouldn't it be great if you could set up a network of BBSes all over the world that didn't actually use
the internet in any way? Well POTS (Plain old Telephone Systems) are all-but gone today and will be entirely gone soon so going back to how
it was done in the 90's and before isn't really possible. And if you ask an enginner to come up with a network of BBSes today he's almost
certainly end up using the internet in some way even if inadvertently (such as VoIP).
However, ham radio is an option, except that only a small handfull of people would be able to set up something like that with the equipment, space (for antennas) and training (for liscening). Maybe something that used ham stations as a hub then something simplier for more local connections. Could you broadcast data over CB? is that allowed?
Anyway I digress, I'm way off subject here. I've just been wondering if
a group of people wanted to make a computer network entirely outside of the internet how would you go about it given what is available today?
Re: Re: Our Brave New World
By: HusTler to jimmylogan on Mon Jan 11 2021 07:55 am
BBS's will never be "mainstream" because there are no ads. Years ago so SysOps charged for their services and even that didn't work out. So yea, BBSing is a hobby because money isn't involved. If users would take the t to learn how to use a BBS I suspect they would be used more.
I disagree. Many large BBSs charged and they remained successful throughout the BBS era. Smaller systems that didn't offer the level of communication, messaging, games, etc., couldn't compete with the bigger systems that existe at the time. I ran a corporate BBS back in the 90s and we charged $15/mo, i had a couple thousand users, 250+ phone lines, access throughout the US and Canada, internet, and even *nix shell accounts. It was making money.
Dream Master
Bank in the day, computing was not regarded as a free commodity.
Nowadays every Joe is offering free email with High Availability and spam control and whatever have you. Connectivity is plenty. Therefore most people does not buy email services for personal use. In fact, lots of small business buy no email services and use some freebie from Big Tech instead.
Under these circumsptances, it is very hard to convince people that your service is worth paying. We have been culturally conditioned to believe that this stuff should be for free. It is not like we are in the times when they billed you by the minute and the fact you were connected to anything costed a emaningful ammount of money.
That last message of mine was a typo orgy :-(
Dream Master wrote to Zombie Mambo <=-
Re: Our Brave New World
By: Zombie Mambo to Arelor on Sun Jan 10 2021 01:22 pm
You can't apply your terms and service in such a way that violates constitutional rights either. If you want to do business in this country, and others, you have to do things a certain way, just like if you want to hire/fire people... So I have hope and pray that people will figure this out again in time for my kids have a better life of true freedom like this country is SUPPOSED to stand for.
Constitutional rights do not apply to businesses.
Think of it this way... 1st Amendment, the right to free speech. It
may apply in a public forum but under the auspices of a business or private entity, they no longer apply. A company has every right to
stifle the expression of free speech simply by not allowing you to communicate openly on LinkedIn or other platforms. 2nd Amendment, the right to bare arms. Go ahead and bring your handgun into the office
and see how quickly the police are called on you. 5th Amendment, self-incrimination. Your internet usage is fair game on their network.
The idea that Trump was removed from the social networking platforms
was a necessary evil. Is it their right, yes. A business has every
right to refuse service to anyone.
Dream Master wrote to Gamgee <=-
I also checked the complete list of "restriction" flags you can set on
a user account, and there is no apparent restriction that would
prevent a Guest user from seeing networked subs. There are several
Reduce the Guest account from having the same level of access to
message boards that your normal users would have access.
example, prevent the Guest account from being able to post
messages (Restriction N) on networked sub-boards. Check out https://wiki.synchro.net/access:restrictions.
Re: Our Brave New World
By: Brandoniusrex to Zombie Mambo on Sun Jan 10 2021 10:35 pm
There is a grand delusion that "First amendment protections apply only to government, and if you don't like this sort of distributed anarchotyrann censorship, build a new platform" on the right. Then, when they do, it j gets banned off of devices. Then it will be "Just build a new phone comp and OS!". Then when Amazon bans them from the cloud that's needed for a of that scope, it's "well build your own cloud server farm.". Then it wi "Well build your own internet!" at some point. This notion that Platform do whatever they want and censor whomever just because they're not a government HAS to end, or the very fabric of our society is going to cru and devolve to violent action of disenfranchised people striving to be h That's not the future I want. But, apparently, it's the future governmen want. I've been screaming this from the rooftops for years, but, everybo too glued into their smartphones to see the writing on the wall... The p we've seen for decades is an anomaly. And one that we may sadly see comp squashed through technocratic distributed censorship. All while the "lef "critical" of big Capital, cheers it on every step of the way. Ironic, i it?
I am hopeful in this regard because they haven't managed to destroy a lot of deeply hated (by infrastructure providers) sites. Including The Pirate Bay.
They can't really deplatform you from the Internet completely without some s of gov action afaik. AS numbers are assigned via a conssortium-like internet task force and there are domain names for the grab that fall under the contr of some gov managed TDL. I suppose ISP providers could refuse to link to you Autonomous Zones but afaik there are rules against refusing linkage in some countries.
For evil actors, it is easier to bribe Google into not listing your website their search results, than trying to deplatform you completely. Or just accu you of some bullshit charge and threaten to make you waste $$$$$ in useless court cases unless you remove yourself from the Internet.
Internet is a federated network. Federated networks regard obstacles to the flow of information as damage and route around them.
That said, this trend we see is quite disturbing. We have a very powerful SJ crowd that is heavily bent in isolating everybody else from any market - ie your videogame is no SJW enough they will campaign against you. Meanwhile, regular people is still purchasing services from the very entities that are trying to isolate them, giving them more money that will be used against the The Apple/Google/Twitter/Amazon cases are just the tip of the iceberg.
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
I would not like to see BBSs go mainstream. Once something goes mainstream large corporate conglomerates find a way to bastardize it.
I also would not like to see BBBs be any more mobile friendly then they are now. The way I see it where there was once the one world labeled "cyberspac there is now two: The computing world and the mobile world.
On mobile platforms it takes only a few seconds to glance at a post, judge i to be true, agree with it, and share it ... spreading it like a virus.
If you have a thought, a wim, a complaint, you're just generally being a dic in the mobile world you can spread that hate in less than a minute.
In the BBS world, if you can't hold that thought and care enough about it an think about it and analyze it long enough to get to a computer and log into BBS to write about it then it's not worth writing about.
BBSes are great today because they are not mobile friendly, they are not alw "at our fingertips" and they are not on the radar of entities like Apple and Google.
I have been thinking lately about the fact that we should probably try to ha other networks besides the internet. I was thinking about all those modems lying around collecting dust or rotting in landfills and how for a breif per of time there were computer systems that were on the internet and those that weren't. Wouldn't it be great if you could set up a network of BBSes all ov the world that didn't actually use the internet in any way? Well POTS (Plai old Telephone Systems) are all-but gone today and will be entirely gone soon going back to how it was done in the 90's and before isn't really possible. And if you ask an enginner to come up with a network of BBSes today he's alm certainly end up using the internet in some way even if inadvertently (such VoIP).
However, ham radio is an option, except that only a small handfull of people would be able to set up something like that with the equipment, space (for antennas) and training (for liscening). Maybe something that used ham stati as a hub then something simplier for more local connections. Could you broadcast data over CB? is that allowed?
Anyway I digress, I'm way off subject here. I've just been wondering if a group of people wanted to make a computer network entirely outside of the internet how would you go about it given what is available today?
I also checked the complete list of "restriction" flags you can set on
a user account, and there is no apparent restriction that would
prevent a Guest user from seeing networked subs. There are several
that will prevent them from posting to such, but not viewing. So it's unclear to me how a guest account keeps them from seeing that stuff.
Re: Our Brave New World
By: Zombie Mambo to Arelor on Sun Jan 10 2021 01:22 pm
You can't apply your terms and service in such a way that violates constitutional rights either. If you want to do business in this country, and others, you have to do things a certain way, just like if you want to hire/fire people... So I have hope and pray that people will figure this again in time for my kids have a better life of true freedom like this country is SUPPOSED to stand for.
Constitutional rights do not apply to businesses.
Think of it this way... 1st Amendment, the right to free speech. It may app
allowing you to communicate openly on LinkedIn or other platforms. 2nd Ame et usage is fair game on their network.
The idea that Trump was removed from the social networking platforms was a n
Dream Master
Thanks for the info, I bet if I set a different (lower) security level
for the Guest as compared to Normal users, that will be the answer.
Fundamentally, if free speech is to continue in the modern era, your, al beittechnically legally correct by manys' perspective, reading of the law
HAS tobe changed. For better or worse, places like Facebook, Twitter,
Google, et.al. have become the public square, or the primary means of
delivery ofinformation to the people. In the 21st Century Society, they
NEED to betreated as such under the law, or, well, we get what we're
seeing in theserecent years. This is much larger than Trump (I'll put
aside all my personalgripes about him). It's about a fundamental right and
principle the countrywas founded on, that is being eroded by a
technicality.
THIS TIMES A MILLION. Anybody who says "Well government isn't technically ¨doing it, so the 1st Amendment isn't violated" is not looking at the ¨fundamentals, IMO, and that is NOT meant as a personal dig. It's meant as a ¨way for us all to grow in our assessment of our modern world. It is NOT ¨freedom to trade censorship by one entity for another, simply because one is ¨an elected or appointed system of government. In some ways, corporations ¨having this power is almost MORE dangerous, as they are not accountable to the ¨people. "Just make your own facebook". That just got demonstrated to not work, ¨because Big Tech Corporations are in Lock Step on their political narrative. ¨If that narrative fits your narrative, then, fine. Just have the honesty to ¨say you want to crush your political oppossition through censorship. I'll at ¨least respect that. (Directing that at big tech and government, not users ¨here). But, don't cower behind "Oh, free speech, go build your own app or ¨website. Then go get on the not-allowed-unless-rooted app-stores. Then, go ¨build your own cell phones. Then, go build your own cell network. Then, go ¨build your own internet. etc etc." It's a joke, and these corporations are ¨actually weilding more power than governments a decade ago could have DREAMED ¨of, much less governments in the 18th century. Democracy and Freedom of Speech ¨are going flatline on the operating table, and the surgeon? He's first in line ¨to get a big chunk of change if he "exerts all his efforts" and the patient ¨still passes.Dream Master wrote to Zombie Mambo <=-
Re: Our Brave New World
By: Zombie Mambo to Arelor on Sun Jan 10 2021 01:22 pm
You can't apply your terms and service in such a way that violates constitutional rights either. If you want to do business in this country, and others, you have to do things a certain way, just like if you want to hire/fire people... So I have hope and pray that people will figure this again in time for my kids have a better life of true freedom like this country is SUPPOSED to stand for.
Constitutional rights do not apply to businesses.
Think of it this way... 1st Amendment, the right to free speech. It may apply in a public forum but under the auspices of a business or private entity, they no longer apply. A company has every right to stifle the expression of free speech simply by not allowing you to communicate openly on LinkedIn or other platforms. 2nd Amendment, the right to bare arms. Go ahead and bring your handgun into the office and see how quickly the police are called on you. 5th Amendment, self-incrimination. Your internet usage is fair game on their network.
The idea that Trump was removed from the social networking platforms was a necessary evil. Is it their right, yes. A business has every right to refuse service to anyone.
When the constitution was written, these kinds of platforms did not exist. There was no need to consider the censorship that business might engage in because at the time no business was able to stifle your speech to any meaningful degree.
The argument that free speech shouldn't be afforded in the corporate sphere based on taking the 1st amendment in word, rather than in spirit. The purpo of free speech is that is helps ensure a peaceful and prosperous society, because we learned the hard way (through death and suffering) that justifications for limiting opinion and not allowing orthodoxy to be challen was DANGEROUS.
Free Speech concerns itself with the ABILITY to express an opinion, not abou who is required not to stifle speech or not.
So if we live in a world where the big business is effectively able to stifl discusion and enforce an ideological orthodoxy, then we are back in the dangerous territory that the 1st amendment was specifically written to avoid It is therefore necessary to adapt, to ensure that there is realised free speech. The important question to ask here is, do citizens in a practical sense, have free speech? And if the answer is no, then we need to make chan so that we can again answer that in the affirmative.
At the moment the USA does NOT have free speech because the mechanisms to censor exist. That they exist outside of the government is meaningless. Th exist, that is enough to be a threat, and we need new laws to bring back fre speech.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
That's a fascinating question that I ponder pretty regularly as well. Truth ¨is, I don't know, but we are rapidly approachi
point where establishing ¨it would actually have realizable returns (read: Freedom to speak without ¨fear of reprisal or
shutdown). Regarding radio or CB, I'm not sure. I know the ¨FCC is very annal about how things are transmitted on the airwa
(for fair ¨reasons). I'm sure more knowledgable people can chime in. I also ¨whole-heartedly agree on your assessment of m
vs computer dynamics. Even ¨in myself, somebody who spends most of his time on a computer posting, I see a ¨HUGE differenc
how I articulate on a mobile device. Though, voice messages ¨help me articulate a lot better. In my opinion, the introducti
of the smart ¨phone was the nail in the coffin of the old free wild west era we've left, not ¨to mention what they've done
peoples' ability to just interact in real life ¨together.
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Gamgee <=-
I also checked the complete list of "restriction" flags you can set on
a user account, and there is no apparent restriction that would
prevent a Guest user from seeing networked subs. There are several
that will prevent them from posting to such, but not viewing. So it's unclear to me how a guest account keeps them from seeing that stuff.
I have the guest account set to LEVEL 40, and the access levels
for each of the networked subboard groups to LEVEL 50 AND NOT
REST Q.
Dream Master wrote to Gamgee <=-
Thanks for the info, I bet if I set a different (lower) security level
for the Guest as compared to Normal users, that will be the answer.
I believe it is necessary to augment accounts to ensure access is
limited whenever necessary. In the case of my Guest account, I
have it set to Level 10 and I restrict the crap out of it. You
can only access local message boards, no posting, no transfers,
nothing. I'm still tweaking it, but in the end, it will give
enough access to look around and that's it.
I've noticed that more and more companies are moving to E-Mail as a Service and dealing with the consequences of it. Look how O365 (or whatever Microsoft is calling it these days) went down multiple times last year. At my old company, I ran a fully redundant environment and kept it up with 99.95% availability. Microsoft, offering their services, can't even do that (plus, I think their SLAs are 99.5% last I checked). By moving these services to the "cloud" (don't get me started here), companies are reducing their reliance on tech-knowledge and instead looking to DevOps and SysOps trained people. I'm neither happy or sad about this but find that something is going to give eventually.
Again, don't disagree at all. My youngest son asked me to setup a Minecraft environment for him so that he and about 20+ friends of his can play on it. I have no problem running it on AWS or even at home. If I run it at home, I'm making them chip in for the cost of a dedicated computer. When I said, "$20 per person," they all balked. So, instead, I'll create them an instance on AWS on a t2.medium or t2.large and they'll have to deal with some performance degredations. The cost to me, about $25 to $30/mo. It isn't a lot, but its still in the context of what you are saying...people want free and expect it that way.
Re: Our Brave New World
By: Zombie Mambo to Arelor on Sun Jan 10 2021 01:22 pm
Re: Our Brave New World
By: Arelor to Brandoniusrex on Sun Jan 10 2021 04:37 am
I've been warning that turning big unaccountable silos into the main s media platforms of the world would bit us in the ***, but nobody ever hahaha
Ditto that, I started talking that way over a decade ago.
You can't apply your terms and service in such a way that violates constitutional rights either. If you want to do business in this country, others, you have to do things a certain way, just like if you want to hir people... So I have hope and pray that people will figure this out again time for my kids have a better life of true freedom like this country is SUPPOSED to stand for.
When society changes what is/isn't acceptable to adapt to their own polit agendas on a daily basis, this experiment doesn't work.
Thanks,
Zombie Mambo
-=+:[ The Zombie Zone BBS * hcow.dynu.net 61912 ]:+=-
There is a grand delusion that "First amendment protections apply only to ¨government, and if you don't like this sort of distributed anarchotyranny ¨censorship, build a new platform" on the right. Then, when they do, it just ¨gets banned off of devices. Then it will be "Just build a new phone company ¨and OS!". Then when Amazon bans them from the cloud that's needed for a sit ¨of that scope, it's "well build your own cloud server farm.". Then it will ¨"Well build your own internet!" at some point. This notion that Platforms c ¨do whatever they want and censor whomever just because they're not a ¨government HAS to end, or the very fabric of our society is going to crumbl ¨and devolve to violent action of disenfranchised people striving to be hear ¨That's not the future I want. But, apparently, it's the future governments ¨want. I've been screaming this from the rooftops for years, but, everybody ¨too glued into their smartphones to see the writing on the wall... The peac ¨we've seen for decades is an anomaly. And one that we may sadly see complet ¨squashed through technocratic distributed censorship. All while the "left", ¨"critical" of big Capital, cheers it on every step of the way. Ironic, isn' ¨it?
Re: Our Brave New World
By: Zombie Mambo to Arelor on Sun Jan 10 2021 01:22 pm
You can't apply your terms and service in such a way that violates constitutional rights either. If you want to do business in this country, and others, you have to do things a certain way, just like if you want to hire/fire people... So I have hope and pray that people will figure this again in time for my kids have a better life of true freedom like this country is SUPPOSED to stand for.
Constitutional rights do not apply to businesses.
Think of it this way... 1st Amendment, the right to free speech. It may app in a public forum but under the auspices of a business or private entity, th no longer apply. A company has every right to stifle the expression of free speech simply by not allowing you to communicate openly on LinkedIn or other platforms. 2nd Amendment, the right to bare arms. Go ahead and bring your handgun into the office and see how quickly the police are called on you. 5 Amendment, self-incrimination. Your internet usage is fair game on their network.
The idea that Trump was removed from the social networking platforms was a necessary evil. Is it their right, yes. A business has every right to refu service to anyone.
Dream Master
BBS's will never be "mainstream" because there are no ads. Years ago
I disagree. Many large BBSs charged and they remained successful throughout the BBS era. Smaller systems that didn't offer the level of communication, messaging, games, etc., couldn't compete with the bigger systems that existe at the time. I ran a corporate BBS back in the 90s and we charged $15/mo, i had a couple thousand users, 250+ phone lines, access throughout the US and Canada, internet, and even *nix shell accounts. It was making money.
Yeah, I don't like to totally rely on cloud storage for everything. At home, I still like to buy movies & TV shows I really like on
blu-ray, and for music, I often like to buy music I can download or buy it on CD and rip it.
It's all a tradeoff. You can pay money or deal with some potential issues there. And for some things, you "pay" with your time viewing
ads & such.
Ok then at my company indians and black people need not apply.
So what happened? Is the BBS mainstream now?
Re: Our Brave New World
By: Zombie Mambo to Dream Master on Tue Jan 12 2021 08:46 am
Ok then at my company indians and black people need not apply.
That's your right. It is also their right to sue you for discrimination. The Constitution enshrines that everyone is equal. It is state and federal laws that ensur
discrimination doesn't happen in the work force.
Dream Master
Re: Re: Our Brave New World
By: Dream Master to HusTler on Mon Jan 11 2021 12:09 pm
BBS's will never be "mainstream" because there are no ads. Years ago
I disagree. Many large BBSs charged and they remained successful through the BBS era. Smaller systems that didn't offer the level of communicatio messaging, games, etc., couldn't compete with the bigger systems that exi at the time. I ran a corporate BBS back in the 90s and we charged $15/mo had a couple thousand users, 250+ phone lines, access throughout the US a Canada, internet, and even *nix shell accounts. It was making money.
So what happened? Is the BBS mainstream now?
I would not like to see BBSs go mainstream. Once something goes mainstream large corporate conglomerates find a way to bastardize it.
I don t think you can have it both ways.
Either you accept that Zombie Mambo can choose which criteria to use for selecting which people to
deal with in his business, or you reject such notion.
If you think Zombie Mambo has a right to refuse business with somebody for arbitrary criteria, then
you accept Twitter has a right to refuse business with somebody for ideological reasons.
If you think Zombie Mambo has no right to refuse business with somebody following bitrary criteria,
then you cannot accept Twitter has a right to refuse business with somebody for ideological
reasons.
Brandoniusrex wrote to Boraxman <=-
Re: Re: Our Brave New World
By: Boraxman to Dream Master on Tue Jan 12 2021 02:23 am
Dream Master wrote to Zombie Mambo <=-
Re: Our Brave New World
By: Zombie Mambo to Arelor on Sun Jan 10 2021 01:22 pm
You can't apply your terms and service in such a way that violates constitutional rights either. If you want to do business in this country, and others, you have to do things a certain way, just like if you want to hire/fire people... So I have hope and pray that people will figure this again in time for my kids have a better life of true freedom like this country is SUPPOSED to stand for.
Constitutional rights do not apply to businesses.
Think of it this way... 1st Amendment, the right to free speech. It may apply in a public forum but under the auspices of a business or private entity, they no longer apply. A company has every right to stifle the expression of free speech simply by not allowing you to communicate openly on LinkedIn or other platforms. 2nd Amendment, the right to bare arms. Go ahead and bring your handgun into the office and see how quickly the police are called on you. 5th Amendment, self-incrimination. Your internet usage is fair game on their network.
The idea that Trump was removed from the social networking platforms was a necessary evil. Is it their right, yes. A business has every right to refuse service to anyone.
When the constitution was written, these kinds of platforms did not exist. There was no need to consider the censorship that business might engage in because at the time no business was able to stifle your speech to any meaningful degree.
The argument that free speech shouldn't be afforded in the corporate sphere based on taking the 1st amendment in word, rather than in spirit. The purpo of free speech is that is helps ensure a peaceful and prosperous society, because we learned the hard way (through death and suffering) that justifications for limiting opinion and not allowing orthodoxy to be challen was DANGEROUS.
Free Speech concerns itself with the ABILITY to express an opinion, not abou who is required not to stifle speech or not.
So if we live in a world where the big business is effectively able to stifl discusion and enforce an ideological orthodoxy, then we are back in the dangerous territory that the 1st amendment was specifically written to avoid It is therefore necessary to adapt, to ensure that there is realised free speech. The important question to ask here is, do citizens in a practical sense, have free speech? And if the answer is no, then we need to make chan so that we can again answer that in the affirmative.
At the moment the USA does NOT have free speech because the mechanisms to censor exist. That they exist outside of the government is meaningless. Th exist, that is enough to be a threat, and we need new laws to bring back fre speech.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
THIS TIMES A MILLION. Anybody who says "Well government isn't
technically ¨doing it, so the 1st Amendment isn't violated" is not
looking at the ¨fundamentals, IMO, and that is NOT meant as a personal dig. It's meant as a ¨way for us all to grow in our assessment of our modern world. It is NOT ¨freedom to trade censorship by one entity for another, simply because one is ¨an elected or appointed system of government. In some ways, corporations ¨having this power is almost
MORE dangerous, as they are not accountable to the ¨people. "Just make your own facebook". That just got demonstrated to not work, ¨because
Big Tech Corporations are in Lock Step on their political narrative.
¨If that narrative fits your narrative, then, fine. Just have the
honesty to ¨say you want to crush your political oppossition through censorship. I'll at ¨least respect that. (Directing that at big tech
and government, not users ¨here). But, don't cower behind "Oh, free speech, go build your own app or ¨website. Then go get on the not-allowed-unless-rooted app-stores. Then, go ¨build your own cell phones. Then, go build your own cell network. Then, go ¨build your own internet. etc etc." It's a joke, and these corporations are ¨actually weilding more power than governments a decade ago could have DREAMED
¨of, much less governments in the 18th century. Democracy and Freedom
of Speech ¨are going flatline on the operating table, and the surgeon? He's first in line ¨to get a big chunk of change if he "exerts all his efforts" and the patient ¨still passes.
Dream Master wrote to Brandoniusrex <=-
Re: Our Brave New World
By: Brandoniusrex to Dream Master on Mon Jan 11 2021 09:04 pm
Fundamentally, if free speech is to continue in the modern era, your, al beit
technically legally correct by manys' perspective, reading of the law
HAS to
be changed. For better or worse, places like Facebook, Twitter,
Google, et.
al. have become the public square, or the primary means of
delivery of
information to the people. In the 21st Century Society, they
NEED to be
treated as such under the law, or, well, we get what we're
seeing in these
recent years. This is much larger than Trump (I'll put
aside all my personal
gripes about him). It's about a fundamental right and
principle the country
was founded on, that is being eroded by a
technicality.
I don't believe there will ever be a Constitutional Amendment that will bring to light our current platforms of communication. I agree that Social Networking has become, for better or worse, the public square,
yet since businesses run these squares, we are all at the whims of
their lawyers and T&Cs. I would love to say, "Let's create an
environment that is open to free speech, without burdensome T&Cs," but
I know that someone will end up getting offended and someone will get sued. There will always be a "Karen" that will find fault with
something.
I remember a BBS called Rusty and Edies. There must have been 100 modems operating. Thet gave access to users that uploaded new files to nthe BBS. Unfortunately many of the new files were copy protected and eventually the feds shut them down and confiscated their equipmnet sometime in the late 90's. I was running a 3 node BBS at the time called "Faculty Lounge" back in the good old Dos days with 9600 baud modems. BBS's were a novelty then and there were more users than sysops, I think there were 40,000 BBS's in the country at the time.
at the time. I ran a corporate BBS back in the 90s and we charged $15/mo, i
had a couple thousand users, 250+ phone lines, access throughout the US and
Canada, internet, and even *nix shell accounts. It was making money.
So what happened? Is the BBS mainstream now?
I'm shocked how apathetic people are about the decline of their nation. Maybe that is why civilisations fall, people actually see it, but they don't consider it that important. People used to fight and die for freedom, and the response from Millenials about having overlords oversee and domineer them is "meh".
So what happened? Is the BBS mainstream now?
You missed my point. The argument was that BBSes failed because they were charging. I disagreed. A lot of BBSes that offered a massive number of pho
HusTler wrote to jimmylogan <=-
BBS's will never be "mainstream" because there are no ads. Years ago some SysOps charged for their services and even that didn't work out.
So yea, BBSing is a hobby because money isn't involved. If users would take the time to learn how to use a BBS I suspect they would be used
more.
Dream Master wrote to Zombie Mambo <=-
Constitutional rights do not apply to businesses.
Think of it this way... 1st Amendment, the right to free speech. It
may apply in a public forum but under the auspices of a business or private entity, they no longer apply.
A company has every right to
stifle the expression of free speech simply by not allowing you to communicate openly on LinkedIn or other platforms.
2nd Amendment, the
right to bare arms. Go ahead and bring your handgun into the office
and see how quickly the police are called on you.
5th Amendment, self-incrimination.
The idea that Trump was removed from the social networking platforms
was a necessary evil.
Is it their right, yes.
A business has every right to refuse service to anyone.
Arelor wrote to Dream Master <=-
I don t think you can have it both ways.
Either you accept that Zombie Mambo can choose which criteria to use
for selecting which people to deal with in his business, or you reject such notion.
I'm shocked how apathetic people are about the decline of their nation. Maybe that is why civilisations fall, people actually see it, but they don't consider it that important. People used to fight and die for freedom, and the response from Millenials about having overlords oversee and domineer them is "meh".
loose. America really is the "meh" state--Amehrica. :)
I wouldnt' want them to go as mainstream as FB or twitter, but I wouldn't mind if they were one day as mainstream as they were back 25-30 years ago.
Then there's the collusion issue. The grocery stores in your area can't all collude to keep you from shopping for groceries. Big Tech also doesn't have the right to push competition (i.e. Parler) off the Internet because they don't like it.
I missed your point? What happened to the BBSes that charged money? It's a simple question? What does facebook do ? Can a BBS do the same?
Think of it this way... 1st Amendment, the right to free speech. It may apply in a public forum but under the auspices of a business or private entity, they no longer apply.
That's not true. I can say what I want, whereever I want, however I want. But there are ramifications for doing so. If I go to the grocery store and start preaching about how great DOVE-NET is, the MAXIMUM the grocery store can do is ask me to leave. Once they've done so, the only thing that they can do is charge me with tresspassing.
A company has every right to
stifle the expression of free speech simply by not allowing you to communicate openly on LinkedIn or other platforms.
But they do not have the right to collude to suppress your speech.
Check out Parler's lawsuit. Sherman Anti Trust. RICO, etc. Those
are all laws that prohibit private companies from doing things like this.
Then we have Breach of Contract. AWS was required, under the contract they signed with Parler, to provide 30 days notice. By not doing so, they committed a crime.
2nd Amendment, the
right to bare arms. Go ahead and bring your handgun into the office and see how quickly the police are called on you.
There have been numerous lawsuits against "woke" companies who have pushed this. Look them up.
Unless the company explicitly declares a policy, you can bring your gun to work. But many states CCW laws let people carry even at work.
Companies cannot completely trump your rights.
5th Amendment, self-incrimination.
All the more reason to set up your own VPN and move away from these
Leftie "platforms".
The idea that Trump was removed from the social networking platforms was a necessary evil.
Only if you are a delusional Leftie - but I repeat myself.
Is it their right, yes.
No, actually, it's not. These companies were protected under Section 230. As part of that, they could not kick Trump and his supporters off for something that the Left made up.
A business has every right to refuse service to anyone.
You are confusing a grocery store with a communication platform that
acts like, and has legal protections of, a public utility.
But Lefties never did understand business. That's why they fail so bad.
Having a bunch of extremists (left or right doesn't matter) promoting violen murder, property damage, etc, makes them look bad, and thus is a violation o TOS and the account is removed. If the service itself is in voliation, then will be shutdown by upstream providers, who in turn have their own TOS.
They aren't colluding. If it wasn't for the events of last Wednesday, every and everything would remain the same. It is through the actions of the insurrectionists that caused all these companies to take action. Sherman, RICO, and such are all tactics that will win no favor even in a Trump appoin courtroom.
If you think Zombie Mambo has no right to refuse business with somebody followi
g bitrary criteria, then you cannot accept Twitter has a right to refuse busine
s with
somebody for ideological reasons.
it that important. People used to fight and die for freedom, and the response >from Millenials about having overlords oversee and domineer them is "meh".
Dr. What wrote to Arelor <=-
Arelor wrote to Dream Master <=-
I don t think you can have it both ways.
I think you can.
Either you accept that Zombie Mambo can choose which criteria to use
for selecting which people to deal with in his business, or you reject such notion.
There are a class of businesses called "public utilities". They are privately owned businesses. But they have been deemed to be necessary
for the public so they have some extra rules put on them.
For example, the phone company can't just cut off your phone without cause. Same for the power and gas companies. They do have a process do
to that, but it's not arbitrary and you as a consumer have considerable say in what happens.
They ran into this in my state a few years back when the gas company wanted to shut off the heat to some people in the middle of the winter
for not paying their bills. The state ruled that they can't do that.
Then there's the collusion issue. The grocery stores in your area
can't all collude to keep you from shopping for groceries. Big Tech
also doesn't have the right to push competition (i.e. Parler) off the Internet because they don't like it.
Dr. What wrote to Dream Master <=-
Dream Master wrote to Zombie Mambo <=-
Constitutional rights do not apply to businesses.
Still trying to push the Leftie Narrative, I see.
Think of it this way... 1st Amendment, the right to free speech. It
may apply in a public forum but under the auspices of a business or private entity, they no longer apply.
That's not true. I can say what I want, whereever I want, however I
want. But there are ramifications for doing so. If I go to the grocery store and start preaching about how great DOVE-NET is, the MAXIMUM the grocery store can do is ask me to leave. Once they've done so, the
only thing that they can do is charge me with tresspassing.
A company has every right to
stifle the expression of free speech simply by not allowing you to communicate openly on LinkedIn or other platforms.
But they do not have the right to collude to suppress your speech.
Check out Parler's lawsuit. Sherman Anti Trust. RICO, etc. Those
are all laws that prohibit private companies from doing things like
this.
Then we have Breach of Contract. AWS was required, under the contract they signed with Parler, to provide 30 days notice. By not doing so,
they committed a crime.
2nd Amendment, the
right to bare arms. Go ahead and bring your handgun into the office
and see how quickly the police are called on you.
There have been numerous lawsuits against "woke" companies who have
pushed this. Look them up.
Unless the company explicitly declares a policy, you can bring your gun
to work. But many states CCW laws let people carry even at work.
Companies cannot completely trump your rights.
5th Amendment, self-incrimination.
All the more reason to set up your own VPN and move away from these
Leftie "platforms".
The idea that Trump was removed from the social networking platforms
was a necessary evil.
Only if you are a delusional Leftie - but I repeat myself.
Is it their right, yes.
No, actually, it's not. These companies were protected under Section
230. As part of that, they could not kick Trump and his supporters off
for something that the Left made up.
A business has every right to refuse service to anyone.
You are confusing a grocery store with a communication platform that
acts like, and has legal protections of, a public utility.
But Lefties never did understand business. That's why they fail so
bad.
Re: Our Brave New World
By: Zombie Mambo to Dream Master on Tue Jan 12 2021 08:46 am
Ok then at my company indians and black people need not apply.
That's your right. It is also their right to sue you for discrimination. T Constitution enshrines that everyone is equal. It is state and federal laws that ensure discrimination doesn't happen in the work force.
Dream Master
Dumas Walker wrote to BORAXMAN <=-
it that important. People used to fight and die for freedom, and the response
from Millenials about having overlords oversee and domineer them is "meh".
There appear to be many in that group that would actually welcome an authoritarian society, although they may not realize that what they
hope for will turn out that way. For them, having someone to take care
of them like mommy and daddy did (or didn't) is more important than freedom.
Re: Re: Our Brave New World
By: Boraxman to Dream Master on Wed Jan 13 2021 12:29 am
I'm shocked how apathetic people are about the decline of their nation. Maybe that is why civilisations fall, people actually see it, but they do consider it that important. People used to fight and die for freedom, an the response from Millenials about having overlords oversee and domineer them is "meh".
Ultimately, people no longer give a **** when they are getting what they nee
Dream Master
Re: Re: Our Brave New World
By: Boraxman to Dream Master on Wed Jan 13 2021 12:29 am
I'm shocked how apathetic people are about the decline of their nation. Maybe that is why civilisations fall, people actually see it, but they don't consider it that important. People used to fight and die for freedom, and the response from Millenials about having overlords overse and domineer them is "meh".
Maybe the importance of freedom has become lost on some people. Over time,
changes over time that are too small to trigger worry for some people.
Nightfox
Bob Roberts wrote to Dr. What <=-
Every business has a Terms of Service you agree to when you create your account. Terms of Service are designed to protect companies and make
sure whatever you do with their Service it won't make them look bad,
isn't in volation of law, etc.
Having a bunch of extremists (left or right doesn't matter) promoting violence, murder, property damage, etc, makes them look bad, and thus
is a violation of TOS and the account is removed.
Dream Master wrote to Dr. What <=-
They aren't colluding.
If it wasn't for the events of last Wednesday,
everyone and everything would remain the same.
It is through the actions of the insurrectionists
Ah, yes, breach of contract. You're correct. But Section 4.2 (Your Content) explicity declares that if you violate any Policies or law,
you are in violation.
Arelor wrote to Dream Master <=-
There is a webcomic in which a machine is generating an output of
random numbers. The list goes like this: 7 -7 -7 -7 -7 ....
"Are you sure these numbers are random?"
"Totally! You cannot prove this is not coincidence!"
Dumas Walker wrote to BORAXMAN <=-
There appear to be many in that group that would actually welcome an authoritarian society, although they may not realize that what they
hope for will turn out that way. For them, having someone to take care
of them like mommy and daddy did (or didn't) is more important than freedom.
Boraxman wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
It's quite detestable, the way that people just seem to automatically think that certain people with position/expertise/authority are somehow not also just human beings, flawed, mistaken and also potentially
(likely) to spin, mislead and lie for their benefit.
Zombie Mambo wrote to Dream Master <=-
Ok then at my company indians and black people need not apply.
Dream Master wrote to HusTler <=-
You missed my point. The argument was that BBSes failed because
they were charging. I disagreed. A lot of BBSes that offered a
massive number of phone lines, files, message areas, and such were successful until the Internet became more mainstream. I would love to
see BBSes make a comeback but they won't until they can offer somethin Facebook, Twitter, and the rest don't.
Arelor wrote to Dream Master <=-
If you think Zombie Mambo has a right to refuse business with somebody
for arbitrary criteria, then you accept Twitter has a right to refuse business with somebody for ideological reasons.
If you think Zombie Mambo has no right to refuse business with somebody following bitrary criteria, then you cannot accept Twitter has a right
to refuse business with somebody for ideological reasons.
Jack Merritt wrote to HusTler <=-
I was running a 3 node BBS at the time
called "Faculty Lounge" back in the good old Dos days with 9600 baud modems.
Boraxman wrote to Dream Master <=-
If that is the case, you are no longer really a free country, by the people, of the people, for the people. You are moving towards an authoritarian banana republic pretty quickly.
I'm shocked how apathetic people are about the decline of their nation.
Maybe that is why civilisations fall, people actually see it, but they don't consider it that important. People used to fight and die for freedom, and the response from Millenials about having overlords
oversee and domineer them is "meh".
Bob Roberts wrote to HusTler <=-
Many commerical BBS converted into local ISPs, and then were bought out
by regional ISPs and so on. I remember in the days of dial up
(1997-1999) or so, when it was still hard to get DSL, paying a few different local ISPs for dial up access.
Dr. What wrote to HusTler <=-
But I think many people are waking up to the fact that if you use a
"free" service, then *you* are the product that they are selling. I
think that the idea of paying for no-ads and better service is a good thing.
Dr. What wrote to Dream Master <=-
Then we have Breach of Contract. AWS was required, under the contract they signed with Parler, to provide 30 days notice. By not doing so,
they committed a crime.
2nd Amendment, the
right to bare arms. Go ahead and bring your handgun into the office
and see how quickly the police are called on you.
No, actually, it's not. These companies were protected under Section
230. As part of that, they could not kick Trump and his supporters off
for something that the Left made up.
A business has every right to refuse service to anyone.
But Lefties never did understand business. That's why they fail so
bad.
Nightfox wrote to Boraxman <=-
Maybe the importance of freedom has become lost on some people. Over time, perhaps that importance hasn't been properly taught to future generations.
Dream Master wrote to HusTler <=-
Today, no. Facebook makes money off of their ads, access to their
CDN, and their shared oceanic high speed connections throuhout the
world. A BBS today could make money if they offered something similar, with ads, but who would put ads on our systems? With the internet, we
all are effectively conncted. It's a matter of how we share our
combined infrastructure and present it to our users/customers.
Arelor wrote to Bob Roberts <=-
Last Tweets from Trump were quite conciliatory and he got banned
anyway, which makes me think he was kicked because of who he was rather than what he was saying.
Did you read the blog post outlining why Donald Trump was removed from Twitter? It wasn't because of ideological reasons. It's up on blog.twitter.com.
The tough change is getting people to realize that content should be paid for, to the content creators. Web 2.0 got a handful of employees and shareholders of social media companies rich, web 3.0 should find a way to reward the makers of the content that make the social media companies rich.
Nightfox wrote to Boraxman <=-
Maybe the importance of freedom has become lost on some people. Over time, perhaps that importance hasn't been properly taught to future generations.
It's a pendulum. The generation that fought against world fascism watched the pendulum swing to complacency. Inevitably, the pendulum will swing again. I hope we haven't been made irrevocably complacent and that it won't take a world conflict and genocide to do so.
... Only one element of each kind
Yet Lefties can't seem to never violate those terms of service no matter how violent their posts are and non-Lefties can violate without actually doing anything violating.
Re: Re: Our Brave New World
By: Dr. What to Bob Roberts on Fri Jan 15 2021 08:46 am
Yet Lefties can't seem to never violate those terms of service no matter violent their posts are and non-Lefties can violate without actually doin anything violating.
Maybe you're right. Maybe left-leaning groups do get violent. Maybe they u services like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to communicate their plans. This difference is what allows the left-leaning groups to clear any T&C hurd that the right-leaning groups seem to get stuck on.
Dream Master
Dr. What wrote to Dream Master <=-
It is through the actions of the insurrectionists
Ah, yes. The latest Leftie boogyman: Insurrectionists.
Lefties always project.
Dr. What wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
@MSGID: <6001B730.49332.dove-general@dmine.net>
@REPLY: <5FFF79FF.51371.dove-gen@capitolcityonline.net>
Dumas Walker wrote to BORAXMAN <=-
There appear to be many in that group that would actually welcome an authoritarian society, although they may not realize that what they
hope for will turn out that way. For them, having someone to take care
of them like mommy and daddy did (or didn't) is more important than freedom.
Those people are just incredibly naive and uneducated.
The Leftie schools have not taught that socialism has always turned to totaliarianism and always ended badly for the population.
Some of these people just want to be like the Scandanavian countries,
but they ignore the realities of that too. 1: they aren't socialist in wealth creation - they are capitalist. 2: they are socialist only in government programs - and they tax the daylights out of everyone to provide those programs. In some of those countries, they are trying to privatize those programs.
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Arelor <=-
@MSGID: <6001C041.44673.dove.dove-gen@realitycheckbbs.org>
@REPLY: <5FFE3760.19777.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
Arelor wrote to Dream Master <=-
If you think Zombie Mambo has a right to refuse business with somebody
for arbitrary criteria, then you accept Twitter has a right to refuse business with somebody for ideological reasons.
He used the word "apply". Not catering to people of color as a business owner is one thing. Not hiring people because of their color is another argument.
If you think Zombie Mambo has no right to refuse business with somebody following bitrary criteria, then you cannot accept Twitter has a right
to refuse business with somebody for ideological reasons.
Did you read the blog post outlining why Donald Trump was removed from Twitter? It wasn't because of ideological reasons. It's up on blog.twitter.com.
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Dr. What <=-
The tough change is getting people to realize that content should be
paid for, to the content creators. Web 2.0 got a handful of employees
and shareholders of social media companies rich, web 3.0 should find a
way to reward the makers of the content that make the social media companies rich.
As it is now, people think content should be free. Someone has to make
it.
Most users of Social(ist) Media sites don't realize that their personal information is being
harvested for use by other companies. They don't realize that they are already paying for
the use of those sites - just not by providing money.
Facebook makes money off of their ads..
A BBS today could make money if they offered something similar,..
FidoBook!
It's a slippery slope, like the fact that my son's friends all assume privacy is a done deal, and it's not a big deal because they don't have anything to hide.
Re: Re: Our Brave New World
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Dr. What on Fri Jan 15 2021 06:50 am
The tough change is getting people to realize that content should be paid for, to the content creators. Web 2.0 got a handful of employees and shareholders of social media companies rich, web 3.0 should find a way to reward the makers of the content that make the social media companies ric
I think content creation is a pretty much failed business model out of specialist niches.
This is the digital era. Digital content can be replicated to infinity. Thin that are in infinity supply have a value of zero.
This is why you have magazines you must pay to in order to have stuff publis in them, and why it is so hard to get music fans in meaningful numbers. Everybody and their aunt is producing content yet the content is close to worthless as a tradeable good.
Social media and other content providers survive because they get other peop to generate content for them for free and then monetize from activities that are independent of the quality of the content.
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
Brandoniusrex wrote to Arelor <=-
I think that blockchain technology may usher in the new web era. We had the ģinternet of ideas exchange, and soon we'll have an internet of
value exchange. ģAnd, by decentralizing payment networks, the power is decentralized (say, away ģfrom Paypal's atrocious model and customer service), and I think will serve to ģdecentralize payments from the "funnel INTO youtube's coffers through ads, ģtrickle out to creators",
to a more distributed "Hey I like this guy, I'm ģsending him X Dollars" type model. You're already slowly seeing sings t his ģis coming, with things like patreon. But, I think it's going to ramp up in the ģnear future, and Blockchain technology will be the avenue, as there is no
way ģto Ban somebody from it. When creators realize there is a payment system ģaround which they don't have to tiptoe their speech and
opinions, there will ģbe a mass exodus. (I'm hoping it will be an
exodus to XRP because it's a ģludicriously fast network and I'm
invested heavily in it, but I'll settle for ģsomething like ETH! Haha)
Ogg wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
It's a slippery slope, like the fact that my son's friends all assume privacy is a done deal, and it's not a big deal because they don't have anything to hide.
The problem with the "nothing to hide" attitude is that
eventually some things that may seem innocuous to share can be
used to social engineer fraud or theft.
Ogg wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
@MSGID: <6004BE39.51437.dove-gen@capitolcityonline.net>
@REPLY: <6001C041.44675.dove.dove-gen@realitycheckbbs.org>
Hello poindexter!
** On Wednesday 13.01.21 - 08:03, poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Boraxman:
It's a slippery slope, like the fact that my son's friends all assume privacy is a done deal, and it's not a big deal because they don't have anything to hide.
The problem with the "nothing to hide" attitude is that
eventually some things that may seem innocuous to share can be
used to social engineer fraud or theft.
Ogg wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Hello poindexter!
** On Wednesday 13.01.21 - 08:03, poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Boraxman:
It's a slippery slope, like the fact that my son's friends all assume privacy is a done deal, and it's not a big deal because they don't have anything to hide.
The problem with the "nothing to hide" attitude is that
eventually some things that may seem innocuous to share can be
used to social engineer fraud or theft.
--- OpenXP 5.0.48
* Origin: Ogg's Dovenet Point (723:320/1.9)
= Synchronet = CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Ogg <=-
@MSGID: <60063D01.44728.dove.dove-gen@realitycheckbbs.org>
@REPLY: <6004BE39.51437.dove-gen@capitolcityonline.net>
Ogg wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
It's a slippery slope, like the fact that my son's friends all assume privacy is a done deal, and it's not a big deal because they don't have anything to hide.
The problem with the "nothing to hide" attitude is that
eventually some things that may seem innocuous to share can be
used to social engineer fraud or theft.
Preach, brother. Add to it the "greater than the sum of the parts"
effect when you combine data from otherwise innocuous sources. Suddenly trends that weren't in either data stream separately come to light.
The problem with the "nothing to hide" attitude is that
eventually some things that may seem innocuous to share can be
used to social engineer fraud or theft.
I'm with you there. The question I ask is: When does it stop?
If they have nothing to hide, why not have glass walls? It's a silly question but it's not meant to be serious.
As a privacy advocate, many people often defend the lack of privacy as a good thing. It shocks me every time.
As a privacy advocate, many people often defend the lack of privacy as a good thing. It shocks me every time.
It's strange indeed that people think this way. When the argument about privacy is on the table, a lot of people say that "they have nothing to hide because they are not doing anything wrong". I mostly debunk that by asking if it would be ok to remove the door to their toilet and their bedroom so anyone can come and watch when they are doing 'their business'. There is nothing "wrong" with taking a dump, yet it is something we do like to keep "private", hence the need for privacy.
It's strange indeed that people think this way. When the argument about privac
is on the table, a lot of people say that "they have nothing to hide because t
y are not doing anything wrong". I mostly debunk that by asking if it would be
k to remove the door to their toilet and their bedroom so anyone can come and tch when they are doing 'their business'. There is nothing "wrong" with taking
dump, yet it is something we do like to keep "private", hence the need for pr
acy.
Dream Master wrote to Aramis <=-
The knowledge of your medical, financial, and personal information is completely different than the knowledge of what you do behind closed doors. For example, am I completely open about my lung disease?
Mostly, yes. Am I completely open about how much I earn per year? No.
Am I completely open about my personal choices, family decisions,
etc., mostly yes. Do I want you to know what happens inside my bedroom
or bathroom, not really.
How do we reconcile the people who think that the illuminati are using Bill Gates to create nanotech that'll be injected into Covid vaccines in order to track and manipulate us, but also have an iPhone with social network apps?
"Internet jack"
That's the one that kills me.
you think 'ethernet port' sounds less ridiculious?
Re: Re: privacy, not a big deal,
By: MRO to poindexter FORTRAN on Wed Feb 03 2021 01:28 am
"Internet jack"
That's the one that kills me.
you think 'ethernet port' sounds less ridiculious?
I don't see anything wrong with "ethernet port". I mean, that's what it
Really? It seems to me most people know what wi-fi is. I don't recall ever hearing someone call it "wireless". "Wireless" is a bit of an ambiguous term and can mean any type of wireless connection.. A remote control to a TV is wireless but doesn't necessarily use wi-fi. Bluetooth headphones are wireless but they don't use wi-fi.
When people are talking about an internet connection, I often hear people say wi-fi. And I sometimes see signs at restaurants & other places advertising that they have wi-fi for their customers. And wi-fi is the term used in phone settings..
"Internet jack"
That's the one that kills me.
you think 'ethernet port' sounds less ridiculious?
I don't see anything wrong with "ethernet port". I mean, that's what it is.. Maybe "network port" is acceptable too. I don't think I've heard anyone say "internet jack". But I've known people who have confused ethernet ports with phone outlets.
I was taking my Father in law fishing for a few hours close to home, he was going to take the cordless house phone so he could make calls:)
I told him Virgal I have a cell phone that you can use for that.
He didn't quite get the difference between a cell phone and a cordless home phone:)
I was taking my Father in law fishing for a few hours close to home, he was going to take the cordless house phone so he could make calls:)
I told him Virgal I have a cell phone that you can use for that.
He didn't quite get the difference between a cell phone and a cordless home phone:)
I was taking my Father in law fishing for a few hours close to home,
he was going to take the cordless house phone so he could make calls:)
I told him Virgal I have a cell phone that you can use for that.
He didn't quite get the difference between a cell phone and a cordless
home phone:)
...my point exactly...
I was taking my Father in law fishing for a few hours close to home,
he was going to take the cordless house phone so he could make
calls:) I told him Virgal I have a cell phone that you can use for
that. He didn't quite get the difference between a cell phone and a
cordless home phone:)
he might be fucking retarded.
MRO wrote to Nightfox <=-
yeah but them deciding to call it ethernet was weird.
Denn wrote to Nightfox <=-
I was taking my Father in law fishing for a few hours close to home,
he was going to take the cordless house phone so he could make calls:)
I had one of the early 900 mhz digital phones, and I could
bring it down to the pub and still get a signal. It got
lots of odd looks when someone needed to use the payphone
and I'd hand them mine.
I was on the top floor, the signal made it all the way to
the laundromat across the street!
Re: Re: privacy, not a big deal,
By: MRO to Denn on Thu Feb 04 2021 12:53 pm
I was taking my Father in law fishing for a few hours close to home,
he was going to take the cordless house phone so he could make
calls:) I told him Virgal I have a cell phone that you can use for
that. He didn't quite get the difference between a cell phone and a
cordless home phone:)
he might be fucking retarded.
MRO wrote to Nightfox <=-
yeah but them deciding to call it ethernet was weird.
Bob Metcalfe had his reasons.
Ogg wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
I had one of the early 900 mhz digital phones, and I could
bring it down to the pub and still get a signal. It got
lots of odd looks when someone needed to use the payphone
and I'd hand them mine.
I thought the 900 mhz phones were analog (pre-digital). I know
several people who were listening with scanners to neighbors.
It's a slippery slope, like the fact that my son's friends all assume privacy is a done deal, and it's not a big deal because they don'thave
anything to hide.
The problem with the "nothing to hide" attitude is that
eventually some things that may seem innocuous to share can be
used to social engineer fraud or theft.
It's a slippery slope, like the fact that my son's friends all assume
privacy is a done deal, and it's not a big deal because they don't
have anything to hide.
It should be up to each individual on how much privacy they wish.
The problem with the "nothing to hide" attitude is that
eventually some things that may seem innocuous to share can be
used to social engineer fraud or theft.
That is why the abuse departments where created
THIS is illuminating:
https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE
Don't Talk to the Police
12,154,122 views
Regent University School of Law
53.2K subscribers
Don't have anyything to hide? Think again. Even an honest
innocuous reply can be turned against you.
It's a slippery slope, like the fact that my son's friends allhave
assume privacy is a done deal, and it's not a big deal because
they don't
anything to hide.
Knightbbs wrote to Terminator <=-
@MSGID: <60713AD2.28518.dove-general@warensemble.com>
@REPLY: <606961D4.15020.dove-general@sbbs.dynu.net>
Re: Re: privacy, not a big deal, nothing
to hide
By: Terminator to Ogg on
Sun Apr 04 2021 02:46 am
It's a slippery slope, like the fact that my son's friends allhave
assume privacy is a done deal, and it's not a big deal because
they don't
anything to hide.
In that case: Let's move your bed to the front room, remove the
curtains, have intercourse in broad dailight in front of a passing
crowd and lets get rid of toilets and just poop in a bucket in the
middle of the office.
Privacy does not mean seclusion from observation because you are doing anything wrong, it is a deeply personal right AND in a more fundemental way the only moment we can truly be ourselves.
Knightbbs wrote to Terminator <=-
@MSGID: <60713AD2.28518.dove-general@warensemble.com>
@REPLY: <606961D4.15020.dove-general@sbbs.dynu.net>
Re: Re: privacy, not a big deal, nothing
to hide
By: Terminator to Ogg on
Sun Apr 04 2021 02:46 am
It's a slippery slope, like the fact that my son's friends all pF>> assume privacy is a done deal, and it's not a big deal because pF>> they don'thave
anything to hide.
In that case: Let's move your bed to the front room, remove the curtains, have intercourse in broad dailight in front of a passing crowd and lets get rid of toilets and just poop in a bucket in the middle of the office.
Privacy does not mean seclusion from observation because you are doin anything wrong, it is a deeply personal right AND in a more fundement way the only moment we can truly be ourselves.
When people tell me that I am silly for being concerned about the governme any other group tracking everything I do and accessing my data, I ask them allow me to go through their phone. I tell them that the government is ju people, like me, and if they are comfortable with strangers rifling throug data, then surely they should be comfortable with someone they know and tr more.
Haven't had anyone hand over their phone to me so far...
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
ž Synchronet ž MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
access to their information and monitor their every move, and have Elexa listening 24 hours a day.
What is Elexa? Is that some new digital assistant?
Re: Re: privacy, not a big de
By: multiplemiggs to Boraxman on Tue Apr 13 2021 12:14 am
access to their information and monitor their every move, and have El listening 24 hours a day.
What is Elexa? Is that some new digital assistant?
Nightfox
---
ž Synchronet ž Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
* warning, side effects may include: a loss of individuality, unresolvable existential crises, and an inability to pee.
Re: Re: privacy, not a big de
By: Underminer to Nightfox on Tue Apr 13 2021 12:13 pm
* warning, side effects may include: a loss of individuality, unresolvable existential crises, and an inability to pee.
It's Amazon, you can always pee in a bottle at work.
Re: Re: privacy, not a big de
By: Underminer to Nightfox on Tue Apr 13 2021 12:13 pm
* warning, side effects may include: a loss of individuality, unresolvable existential crises, and an inability to pee.
It's Amazon, you can always pee in a bottle at work.
It's Amazon, you can always pee in a bottle at work.yeah that never happened.
Re: Re: privacy, not a big de
By: MRO to Knightbbs on Sat Apr 17 2021 08:21 am
It's Amazon, you can always pee in a bottle at work.yeah that never happened.
I don't know. I've heard first hand that the working conditions in the Amazon warehouses are poor. Friend of mine worked there and complained about the lack of heating and such. I think a lot of these big tech companies (Uber, Amazon etc) treat employees like cattle.y
Knightbbs wrote to MRO <=-
@VIA: VERT/ENSEMBLE
@MSGID: <607BE11E.28645.dove-general@warensemble.com>
@REPLY: <607AE0CE.4398.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@TZ: c168
Re: Re: privacy, not a big de
By: MRO to Knightbbs on Sat Apr 17 2021 08:21 am
I don't know. I've heard first hand that the working conditions in
the Amazon warehouses are poor. Friend of mine worked there and
complained about the lack of heating and such. I think a lot of
these big tech companies (Uber, Amazon etc) treat employees like
cattle.
| Sysop: | Gate Keeper |
|---|---|
| Location: | Shelby, NC |
| Users: | 764 |
| Nodes: | 20 (0 / 20) |
| Uptime: | 40:11:01 |
| Calls: | 11,275 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 5,288 |
| D/L today: |
81 files (10,064K bytes) |
| Messages: | 521,283 |