You might like (or have already seen): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPp-U4QonnM

I’m almost certain they mean Reddit, but there are a lot of sites that aren’t lemmy.dbzer0.com … like lemm.ee and infosec.pub … even some sites that aren’t Lemmy instances like infosec.exchance or hachyderm.io.

CW: Visible notochord.

ISTR you can do the sieve thing with true living sponges, too. Life on earth is wild. I wonder if it will be considered mild once we find some interesting life off-planet.

I have 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 in my resolver configuration. I’ve heard that 9.9.9.9 might not be poisoned like this. Besides running my own DNS (not even on a dare), is there a good way to get uncensored DNS resutls?

It’s what I use, but I haven’t completed a comprehensive survey. It’s good enough I’m not looking for anything better.

removing copyright entirely would benefit society

I could be convinced of that.

I think extreme reform would be of more benefit. Copyright as-is is an active harm.

Copyright IS about protecting creators

No, it isn’t. The intent WAS to “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”. The reality IS that it harms society, by benefiting only the already powerful.

I believe that the protection copyright provides is proportionate to how much you can spend on lawyers. So, no protection for the smallest creators, and little protection for smaller creators against larger corporations.

I support extreme copyright reform, though I doubt it should be completely removed.

The reason copyright exists is for the same reason patents do: to protect the little guy.

If you actually believe this is still true, I’ve got a bridge to sell ya’.

This hasn’t been true since the '70s, at the latest.

This more closely aligns with my perspective, although I also believe no work should be able to be covered by both copyright and patent (e.g. software).

I’m even willing to give longer terms as long as they are limited by the lifespan of the living sentient creator, and not subject to legal games around corporate personhood.

But, I can certainly see the motivations behind eliminating copyright entirely.

Interesting take. I’m not opposed, but I feel like the necessary reverse engineering skill base won’t ramp up enough to deal with SAS and holomorphic encryption. So, in a world without copyright, you might be able to analog hole whatever non-interactibe media you want, but software piracy will be rendered impossible at the end of the escalation of hostilities.

Copyright is an unnatural, authoritarian-imposed monopoly. I doubt it will last forever.

https://git-annex.branchable.com/todo/Bittorrent-like_features/ – Use IPFS as a special git-annex remote, and it will be nearly impossible to execute a take-down.

If you have other “decentralized filesystems” that have “better” behavior than IPFS, you might see if joeyh or yourself can add them as other special remotes.

I see editability as generally an improvement, especially since the older versions are still visible with a couple of clicks. Reddit titles are not editable. Tweets used to be uneditable; toots are.

Wire (https://wire.com/) uses the same OTR / double-ratchet encryption primitives as Signal, but focuses more on self-hosting, and supporting organizations that want to self-host (for whatever reason).

I believe GNU Jami, well-deployed is capable of Signal’s level of security while being self-hosted.

Don’t boost it. If it violates your instance’s rules (e.g. it’s a scam), report it. Unfollow people that boost it. Mute/block the poster or their content.

I don’t mind seeing it, and I don’t think it is a problem (yet).

Agree that caution is warranted for any request of funds, whatever the requestor wants to call it.

Makes me remember when I used Konqueror with FF as a fallback before Chrome existed.

As an American, I’d like the boycott to be more targeted. But yes, every company that licks the boots of this obviously fascist regime should see no more sales. I don’t have a full list, but it includes at least Meta, Alphabet (Google), and Amazon.

TIL. That sucks.

Definitions are tricky, and especially for terms that are broadly considered virtuous/positive by the general public (cf. “organic”) but I tend to deny something is open source unless you can recreate any binaries/output AND it is presented in the “preferred form for modification” (i.e. the way the GPLv3 defines the “source form”).

A disassembled/decompiled binary might nominally be in some programming language–suitable input to a compiler for that langauge–but that doesn’t actually make it the source code for that binary because it is not in the form the entity most enabled to make a modified form of the binary (normally the original author) would prefer to make modifications.