Making forged pics of someone else falls under defamation.

It’s very clearly not rape, sexual abuse, child pornography or non-consensual pornography.

I don’t know, it’s just experience. Especially onions.

I take it, the word “defamation” is not part of your lexicon.

Read my comment again.

Your opinion is some real “your body, my choice” kind of energy.

My advice to you would be to improve your reading comprehension before judging this way.

In particular, the word “defamation”.

Sugar in them, I think.

I mean, I’ve eaten a lot of things I don’t usually eat, when there was social pressure of the kind this photo shows.

And he does look unhappy on the photo.

But, ahem, this resembles celebrity discussions.

Only should be really careful about lentils, peas, anything that sticks to the bottom.

Cabbage is good. Beef is good. Potatoes are good. Carrots - make it go bad a bit faster when not on fire. Same with peas. And of course with onions it’ll go bad very fast.

There are upsides to Twitter, but having to follow somebody and to register is a no.

Creating and distributing anything should be legal if no real person suffers during its creation and if it’s not intended at defamation, forgery, such things.

Small notes to be answered rarely.

I’ve looked at the early Usenet archives, and typical posts there resembled this format quite a lot. It’s later that Usenet became a place where you write long considerate posts, and also expect rather quick answers.

It’s actually interesting to communicate in a rare terse format.

The reason I don’t use Twitter, BlueSky, anything like that is - I don’t have a scenario of it being useful for me.

There were, you know, Torvalds-Tannenbaum and “cathedral vs bazaar” disputes either of which combined with this would show the way in the direction opposite of what Linux people consider the winning one.

Exactly about complexity and centralization and independence, even though it may not seem so.

Linux is more complex than it has to be. Its main advantage over a few other operating systems, which is hardware support, has nothing to do with its unjustified complexity in everything else.

Bad actors will GLADLY spend a year or two sneaking in various MRs to compromise a browser because it can potentially pay enough to never have to hack again.

I dunno, this seems to work against the point you seem to be making.

There’s a clear concept of what the Web is. A secure browser for that is not so complex. Also look at Gemini.

However, there’s also commercial demand for functionality which has been pushed to browsers instead of, well, anything, a Java applets alternative or Flash alternative with good sandbox, for example.

And now we can many times see that the reason this has been done had nothing to do with it being a better solution.

Just a certain company making one of the browsers had a long-term strategy of making their own competitor of Flash and Java applets (and what not, there were many other such plugins for embedded content) the standard.

I love it. We take away their de facto standards. We increase their day job workload exponentially. And then we expect them to put in the after hours efforts to optimize page loading.

Do people have to spend hours to optimize loading of an e-book? Again, there’s a clear concept of what Web is. It’d be just good tone to treat it as that and “platform for applications” as something secondary that shouldn’t impede the primary goal. Something like street traders squatting on a church square.

My position is that anything else should be embedded content handled by various plugins.

One can refactor the existing “HTML5, modern CSS with complex DOM and all that crap”, maybe even JS. functionality into a plugin based on Chrome released by Google, why not, of course removing those things from the Web itself. I know this reads as if I were smoking weed right now. But suppose that happens, you know as well as I do that people would mostly prefer websites not using that.

People behave as if having a green lock icon were enough to consider you’re safe.

People behave as if there were not multiple cases of abuse of PKI.

People behave as if all those whistleblowing cases exposing widespread illegal activities by the state were not treated as normal, except those exposing them being chased and vilified.

What I’m trying to say is that we’re past the stage where techno-optimism about the Internet made sense. They just say in the news that abusing you is good, and everybody just takes it.

When you have to use it, then yes. But in general standard technologies of today are mostly rigged.

And it shouldn’t have been, SSL PKI is an intentionally rigged architecture. It’s intended for nation-states to be able to abuse it.

I’d like much more some kind of overlay encryption over HTTP based on web of trust and what not. Like those distributed imageboards people were trying to make with steganography in emotion.

It’s a trap. Everybody is already in it and it has already been activated, so - the discussion would be of historical interest only.

If they split Google, MS, Apple, Meta and Amazon all simultaneously, with some condition for the splinters to not merge back, and that contaminating the results of their allowed mergers, there may be good outcomes.

Or there may not. It’s about people, not laws, after all.

Hierarchies are bad for honest people. Honest people take work and meritocracy seriously and try to follow them.

But hierarchies are never about meritocracy. Hierarchies are always built by people who have connived their way up. Those who have worked honestly don’t build hierarchies, at worst they are pressed to do that by outside pressure.

In any case, the market economy I’m in favor of doesn’t include big businesses. As in “at all”. Big cooperatives at the maximum.

For the obvious reason that the bigger a business is, the less it’s about market and the more it’s about power and hierarchy. Big businesses are the way human nature with jungle law and such fights markets and rules. By making the space untouched by market mechanisms and rules into something continuous inside one subject - the company.

It’s the same as siloed services in the Internet. A thousand and one web forums are free, despite open despotism of webmasters in each and every one of those. A three or two big social platforms are not, despite their owners trying their best for their policies to appear impartial and professional and depersonalized.

And I guess that’s where I can agree that the “market economy status quo” has been broken by such evolution showing itself both IRL and in the Web. You can’t make something like 1999 Web and expect it to not turn into 2024 Web. And you also can’t make a functional market economy old-style and expect it to not degrade into what we have.

I like solutions touching upon the root of the problem, so - in my opinion personal responsibility (one can even say sovereignty, pun intended) is key. You don’t lose responsibility for your decision just because you’ve paid someone else or have been paid by someone else. You are both responsible, since it’s a common endeavor. The responsibility is not divided, it’s copied. Also personal responsibility excludes companies as subjects of the law. Only a person can have responsibility, property, make decisions.

That and fully protected free speech and right to self-defense and transparency of the state. I’m not talking about forcing others to give you platform, I’m talking about shadow bans, about state secrets not being something you’d care about if you hadn’t signed anything, about state official’s decisions being only contestable in court, something like that. Anything forcing you to keep your head down.

OK, done dreaming.

Some people would want others’ lives to be embedded into one hierarchy, and that only.

So that everything of importance were decided by people on top of those hierarchies.

Ex-USSR countries show full well why this shouldn’t be allowed. It, of course, was done there accompanied by a different ideology, but.

It seems that modern society has made “standard” things more standard than they originally were.

At least people having special arrangements and working, say, one job 2 days a week and another 3 days a week, and the third sometimes on-demand, seemingly was more normal 100 years ago.

Of course not the majority, the majority would work their asses off by the clock even more than now.

But there are upsides to a non-synchronous, irregular life schedule. Say, more even load for utilities and transport. Weekends not being special days when half the things don’t work.

And, of course, the ability to pick something you like most. Say, if the pay for 3 days a week somewhere is good enough to keep you floating, even if barely, then why the hell not, it’s worth it.

Was he sired on a weekend?

No good clients.

And no clear intended usage scenario. That’s also why IPFS is not very popular.