Online threats to children are real, but the headlong pursuit of age verification that we’re seeing around the world is unacceptable in its approach and far too broad in scope — and we simply can’t afford to get this wrong.
To be clear, parents’ concerns are valid and sincere. Few people would argue that kids should have unfettered access to adult material, to self-harm how-tos, to social media platforms that manipulate them and expose them to abuse.
But it’s the very depth of those worries that is being cynically exploited. Age verification as is currently being proposed in country after country would mean the death of anonymity online.
And we know exactly who stands to gain: The same tech giants who built the privacy nightmare that the internet is today.
Theres a big wide internet beyond apps and scoial media.
that space is already pretty much dead, at least here in germany. If you create your own website, you need to have a valid legal notice. if you set up a web forum, you’re liable for everything that gets posted there.
This is basically FUD. Pick a different jurisdiction if your own country are assholes. Its very easy to participate in the small corners of the internet. Just don’t expect to commercialize it and its easy.
“invest in crypto” Also Proton. Fuck Proton.
Which is WHY I SUPPORT it!
-Proton CEO who Endorses the Politicians MAKING this a Reality!
I’m fine with that.
Explain.
What’s your first and last name?
I’m fine with that.
When done correctly, and someone’s ID remains anonymous from the general public if they wish so, then I’d also be fine with that. Way too many trolls and other forms of bad actors on the Web who intentionally or unintentionally use ad hominems or other toxic communication, it’s so hopelessly divisive and draining.
I recently saw a documentary about looksmaxxing. The forums these kids peruse echo the deepest pits of hell; insisting on suicide and all the forms of psychological bullying one cannot even imagine.
Whether it’s the best solution I don’t know, it’s probably not. But from my point of view, taking away the anonymity from the authorities would significantly lower the amount of depravity on the Web. The crux in this whole matter is of course that the authorities are virtuous, fair, just. If they are not, which all too often is the case, then removing anonymity can be an equally dangerous thing as well.
Obviously everything boils down to education, which needs a complete overhaul. But that’s something that will take decades if not a century to turn humanity into a predominantly virtuous species.
Way too many trolls and other forms of bad actors on the Web who intentionally or unintentionally use ad hominems or other toxic communication, it’s so hopelessly divisive and draining.
How exactly would id verification help against that. Do you want “toxic speech” to become a crime and punished by a court of law?
“Do you want “toxic speech” to become a crime and punished by a court of law?”
Bullying and disinformation, absolutely.
“How exactly would id verification help against that.”
From the paper What Deters Crime? Comparing the Effectiveness of Legal, Social, and Internal Sanctions Across Countries, citing a meta-analysis:
“On the whole, this meta-analysis favored rejecting the null hypothesis that legal sanctions have no deterrent effect on crime.” ―Meta Analysis of Crime and Deterrence: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature, by Thomas Rupp (2008)
The paper concludes as follows:
Our findings suggest that across societies and cultures, internalized moral standards exert the most powerful restraints on dishonest behavior (see also Campbell, 1964). Policy efforts aimed at promoting moral internalization may be more effective than efforts aimed at increasing the frequency or probability of legal sentences. However, the process by which internalization occurs remains poorly understood, and marks an important direction for future research aimed at reducing crime and enhancing social welfare.
As I said, is it the best solution? Science hasn’t a clear answer either. What does seem to be agreed upon is that:
- “The perceived likelihood that one will be caught is far more effective as a deterrent than the severity of the punishment.” ―Wikipedia - Deterrence: Likelihood vs. severity [Also stated in the aforementioned meta-analysis.]
- That having the moral compass to realize something is wrong, will decrease someone succumbing to such wrongdoings.
My hypothesis is that complete anonymity, so a low probability of getting caught, increases toxic behavior because people suffer no bad consequences whatsoever and therefore never learn. Ever hung around a spoiled kid? They’re the worst. The same happens online. Naturally, proper journalists and whistleblowers are a different thing, absolute anonymity is crucial for them. But how to square both these realities remains to be discovered.
This argument is one degree of separation away from a “nothing to hide” fallacy. And as you accurately pointed out, it’s founded on a very unrealistic assurance of an entirely virtuous power.
Free speech is important. This fact can not be overstated. Surveillance backed by the threat of persecution chills not just “bad speech”, but any speech deemed undesirable by groups or individuals in power. This is a fundamental concept to understand when forming theories and opinions that also directly relate to subjects like democracy and authoritarianism. To miss this crucial fact is to formulate a skewed premise that favors the primary mechanism by which free speech, and by extension the many rights and liberties which require free speech, are historically suppressed.
The notion that democratic systems and values are compatible with a surveillance state is flawed. The two systems operate in directly contradictory ways. Surveillance states historically always tend toward forms of authoritarianism. 1984 was a work of fiction, but it was a warning driven and informed by very real demonstrated dangers inherent in the enabling and acceptance of a surveillance state. The validity of its message is shown clearly and repeatedly in real world examples of population surveillance in practice.
Trading liberties, including and especially privacy, for some concept of order, is a dangerous approach which ignores and contradicts historical evidence. To ignore this is to embark on the path to Oceania.
“This argument is one degree of separation away from a “nothing to hide” fallacy. And as you accurately pointed out, it’s founded on a very unrealistic assurance of an entirely virtuous power.”
I know, and I am vehemently in opposition to the nothing to hide argument. In fact, the reason I recently distrohopped to Artix was because some Arch package maintainer casually uttered the following on the developer adding the birth date field: “I appreciate the work ahead of time, and the law is the law.” Which is either remarkably naive, ignorant of history, or malicious. Homosexuality is still a crime by some law somewhere. So, yeah, utter nonsense.
That being said, if the majority of the Web just becomes a place for advertising, gambling, and predominantly fruitless discord due to rampant disinformation, misinformation, trolling, bullying, et cetera, then I think removing anonymity in some way, e.g., for some websites or specific services, could be a solution. Because if the Web goes where it’s going now, a cesspool of humanity’s worst impulses, I wouldn’t see a reason to keep using it and therefore wouldn’t care whether there’s badly implemented ID verification anyway. Obviously I’d prefer none of this is necessary, that people behave virtuously. But, they don’t, so… I also think there’s too many laws, and that laws mainly apply to the poor and the working class, and the rich—the perpetuators of most of the world’s problems—mostly get off scot-free.
Ugh, it’s all so complex. I don’t have the answer. Do you? Is what I’m saying as utterly nonsensical as what that Arch maintainer said? If so, I’d be glad to adjust my position provided civilized and proper reasoning—not that you didn’t before, @Disillusionist@piefed.world, but many do not.
Exactly this + all the trolls promoting fascism with great success.
Also, congrats on going against the groupthink on lemmy. The pro anonymity crowd here is especially toxic, which only further proves our point.
People are understandably heated over this subject. That often results in heated reactions. It doesn’t invalidate their points, however, and to claim that it instead proves your point that surveillance is necessary could evidence a bias on your part when it comes to engaging with this very divisive topic.
I didn’t claim it invalidates their points. I’m saying that the same points can be made in a civilized way and the very toxicity of online discussions is direct result of online anonymity. And yes, I understand why assholes and children react emotionally when we suggest that their should reveal their identity. That doesn’t mean their behavior is justified.
I actually think it can be commendable to speak out in a situation you view as hostile. I also don’t condone the personal attacks some people might throw at those who voice opinions they don’t agree with.
I would also have to say that I would assume that you get that it’s not guaranteed people are going to be entirely civil when you essentially tell them that you think that the rights they believe in should be done away with.
the very toxicity of online discussions is direct result of online anonymity
And you kind of just did exactly what you said you didn’t, using these interactions as a validation of your claims against those of the people you disagree with.
Having said that, it’s often better to take the high road when we can. It’s possible that not everyone who disagrees with you (or me) is an asshole.
It’s just remarkably disappointing that so many of said cohort is all for freedom or libertarian, but they simultaneously downvote comments into being hidden and offer no counter-arguments. The irony.
But I sigh at discourse online in general, on all sides, for it’s riddled with fallacies. Or even downvotes and upvotes, they mean little to nothing. I know because as an admin I realize there’s tons of people who use multiple accounts, not two or three, but tens of accounts, to skew the votes in their favor.
I have downvotes disables on my instance so I really don’t care about them. I know groupthink is strong on lemmy. Usually I just ignore it but when I’m bored I like to poke people a little bit. Some people are actually interested in discussing things, most just follow the masses. It’s disappointing but that’s internet for you.
Toxic for freedom!
Hey, guess what you need to buy an internet connection in the first place! Wanting more ID verification is only fascism.
I don’t see you using your real name here.
A bit hypocritical if you ask me.
Why?
Misinformation is a great threat to democracy. I live in country with independent courts, free press and freedom of speech. Everyone can criticize the government all they want without repercussions. The threats posed by huge bot farms working to promote fascist far outweigh the fantasy benefits of using anonymous communities to organize some resistance to nonexistent tyrants. Where I live the anonymity online is used exclusively to bully, threaten and defame people. It can be different in different countries but where I live I don’t see any benefits of being able to post things online anonymously.
. I live in country with independent courts, free press and freedom of speech
Which magical country is that? Like, I get some eurohaugtiness vibes from your comment, so as a fellow eurofucker I can tell you, with quite some confidence, that you’re wrong. You’re probably just too privileged for this to matter to you, personally.
Spain.
Spain literally has a law commonly known as “ley mordaza”, which enabled law enforcement to impose massive fines to protesters, some of whom ended up spending months in prison.
Were they protesting anonymously online? If not I don’t see how’s that relevant. Anti government protests are happening all the time in Spain. There are laws that govern those, like in every other country. Did you just google that quickly and paste the first result without understanding it?
I’m a born and raised Spaniard who lived there for over 35 years, and was beaten up by cops at least once. I think I know a thing or two about the system.
You said that in Spain people have the right to protest freely against the government, yet the ley mordaza proves that’s not all true, e.g. https://www.es.amnesty.org/en-que-estamos/blog/historia/articulo/ley-mordaza/
But regardless of all that, there’s an even more solid proof that removing anonymity on the internet is a bad idea in the current Spanish climate: La Liga has been threatening individuals and companies for well over a year now, with the help of the courts and the inaction of the government. Somehow, they had access to internet users’ personal data, and have been sending out letters requesting payment for alleged “pirated content distribution and consumption”. They have pressured ISPs to throttle and even block entire blocks of IP addresses. They have sued people for libel because of insults towards their current president.
My point here is that, if a sports corporation could do that when people are still able to be “anonymous” online, how can you guarantee that Spain wouldn’t devolve into a full fledged corporate fascist state, where those with money have the effective power to target dissidents for the pettiest reason, if anonymity were to go away?
Ja! Tócate los cojones, Mariloli!
Free press: when you can’t even record the police, it’s illegal (kind of, in theory. Absolutely forbidden in practice). Freedom of speech: unless it’s against the Crown, or the Church, or national unity, or… Independent courts: independent from fairness, and the truth? Sure. Independent from the establishment’s power? Not at all. So, yes, you’re too privileged to care for any of this, but worry not, amigo, those privileges are being transferred upwards so (unless you’re part of the top elite) you’ll care soon enough. We don’t have anything to envy the USA or China (on these matters). I’ve been there, not as a tourist, so it’s not hearsay.
Free press: when you can’t even record the police
WTF are you talking about? I see recording of police in media all the time. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/OLwILBtbs0M - OMG! The public TV recorded the police and it’s absolutely forbidden in practice. I’m sure they are all in jail now.
The rest of your arguments are equally silly. I’m not even going to waste my time on them.
Lol
Yawn. You sound like the lobbyists. They want ID to control us, to selectively spread more misinformation.
Nobody will be able to criticize the government, you will be targeted. The bots promoting fascism are the same ones spreading bullshit like this to push for the fascist non-anonymous internet.
It sounds like you shouldnt be using the internet at all.
You sound like a conspiracy theorist. Where I live people are criticizing the government every day. We have opposition parties, activist and unions. We have reporters uncovering corrupt politicians all the time, on all levels of government. The politicians are prosecuted and reporters keep reporting. They all act in the open, not by posting anonymous comments on twitter. As I said, if you live in a country where the government will target you for posting wrong comment then you should totally oppose those law (but your opposition will be meaningless because you already don’t live in a free country). Those laws are not global, each country will introduce them on their own. Where I live, ending online anonymity will have positive effect on democracy.
“You sound like a conspiracy theorist” such low effort way to wave away another point.
You sound like a fucking fascist then.
You missed the rest of my comment where I explained why I think that. This or you don’t know what ‘wave away’ means.
Get outta here fascist.
And that’s a great example of what people use online anonymity for and why I’m not a fan.
Do you really think no one in this thread would call you a dumb fascist to your face?
We know, fascist.
From what I see in your post history you seem to be spanish, you had a fascist dictature just 50 years ago. Do you really think that your current system will never change? That there will never be a point in time where parties like VOX take power and radicalize themselves even more? That they will never control the media with the support of fascist billionaires?
This won’t stop misinformation. This will only allow it to run more rampant.
No, it will not.
Who exactly do you mean by “I”? Preferably with an exact address, just so we know you’re serious about it.
Not being anonymous is not equivalent to broadcasting your personal information to everyone. Maybe that’s why people are so confused here. They think that they will have to post their addresses and phone numbers online?
That’s the best part, companies do that for you
Those are two different things. Being identifiable online is not the same as giving some company your personal information. People give companies their info all the time without online age verification. Age verification done the right way does not require providing any personal info. I 100% oppose forcing people to share personal data with private companies. This is not what we’re talking about here.
Age verification done the right way does not require providing any personal info. I 100% oppose forcing people to share personal data with private companies. This is not what we’re talking about here.
Handing your government ID and other personal data to private companies is exactly how current proposals for online age verification work. It could be done without this, but that’s not what governments and corporations are pushing for, because the goal is easier surveillance. Take a look at some of the problems with Persona, for example:
Not in my country. Spain and EU are proposing different system. I’m not talking about your country and your laws. I’m talking about mine.
Those are two different things. Being identifiable online is not the same as giving some company your personal information.
I 100% oppose forcing people to share personal data with private companies. This is not what we’re talking about here.
This is, in fact, exactly what we’re talking about here. The assumption that de-anonymization has some foolproof implementation that only does a single identifying thing (like a limited signal that only says someone is “old enough”) is missing a lot of context. Even Von der Leyen’s “privacy respecting” age verification app has been shown to have major flaws in that regard. The assumption that it will simply end there also contradicts the evidence.
Privacy is a right of fundamental importance to virtually all notions of liberty. Like it or not, data rights are human rights. A society without privacy becomes a society without freedom. The discussions around abolishing privacy are actually always discussions about other problems which are better served by addressing them directly and honestly rather than promoting the idea that the answer is sacrificing essential rights. Our best approach is to address these ills with an honest assessment of their actual, specific causes (like social media algorithms, lack of accountability, and the many reckless, harmful and exploitative practices which have become industry standards, etc) and act from there.
This is, in fact, exactly what we’re talking about here.
No, we’re not. We’re talking about publishing content online. That’s the exact opposite of keeping things private. EU laws are clear here. Your data is protected and age verification does not overwrite those rights. We’re not talking about removing e2e encryption, https, VPNs and making selfhosting illegal. We’re talking about proving that things that are published (i.e. made public) on the internet are actually published by a citizen.
It’s baffling that people confuse anonymity with privacy. My Signal account is tied to my phone number yet my conversation are private. You somehow think that protecting this privacy means we have to protect russian bots creating Twitter accounts and spamming the platform with anti-EU propaganda pretending to be 25 year old single mother from Warsaw.
The assumption that it will simply end there also contradicts the evidence.
And we have the slippery slope argument. Because that’s the only argument people have here. “We need anonymity on social media because they will install cameras in our bedrooms next”. I’m not buying that. So far EU has a very good track record when it comes to protecting its citizens from corporations. The fastest way to lose this protection is to let russia backed fascists from AfD, Vox, Kofederacja and Fidesz destabilize and take over EU. Online anonymity is not protecting us from them, it’s the main tool they are using. And this is not some fantasy, we’ve already seen this in UK. Russia backed politicians did brexit and now UK is the most anty-privacy country in Europe. Seeing how toxic the topic of anonymity is I wonder how my russian assets are taking part in this discussion…
We’re not talking about removing e2e encryption, https, VPNs and making selfhosting illegal.
While it might not be happening in your neck of the woods, there are efforts to crack down on encryption as well, in France for instance. The EU is not immune to encroachment and abuse of the individual’s rights, no place is.
It’s baffling that people confuse anonymity with privacy. My Signal account is tied to my phone number yet my conversation are private.
While you’re correct that anonymity is not the same as privacy, encryption alone is not a viable answer. As “Signalgate” in the US demonstrated, encryption is merely an attempt to secure a channel of communication. It isn’t sufficient on its own to protect anything, it isn’t even guaranteed to be secure a surprising amount of the time.
Overall, you seem to have a strong sense of faith that your country and the EU as a whole will be this unshakable pillar in the face of all of everything happening all around. Even if you trust your government or the EU, you would also have to trust the numerous platforms, service providers, data brokers, and digital security apparatus to all work honestly and in conjunction toward your (and everyone else’s) best interests. That’s quite a lot of trust and faith to spread around.
As far as all the various fascists and other bad actors you’re (rightly) concerned about, that is a good point to talk about. One thing to emphasize is that the major platforms hosting them have historically had a legal obligation to moderate their content, which they have been grossly negligent at. There is a whole discussion there, but the point is that there is a reasonable expectation that platforms do their utmost to handle these situations responsibly. Due to things like engagement metrics, this obligation often contradicts with the bottom line of the business (as brought out in the “Facebook Papers” leak) since controversial content typically elicits high engagement.
I (and others) don’t believe the answer lies in individuals forfeiting rights simply because the platforms won’t do what they are rightly obligated to do. Shifting the responsibility away from the platforms themselves not only makes it less likely they will improve their practices, but it makes any measures any individual or government may take to sanitize that caustic digital environment that much harder and less effective.
“Turn into” ?
Moreso. It can always get worse, and indeed everything is.
As of right now it is optional.
He has a vested interest in saying that, but he’s right, and it would be awful
It’s interesting what people expect of Proton Mail. I’ve used it for a long time but for only one reason really: their revenue stream is my subscription and not ads. I’ve never even given a second thought to all their encryption claims. Even with Proton Mail if I ever wanted to send a “secret” email I’d wrap the content in my own personal keys.
With respect to IP addresses of email logins, I’m surprised they ever claimed they don’t have logs. You’ve always been able to review the IP of a login through the web UI as far as I remember. Was the idea that that was also supposed to be encrypted?
Personally I’m OK with them complying with court orders, but I understand that “the definition of criminal is state defined” and that poses serious issues. It kinda seems like if you want to do something that could be considered criminal at some point in your life by your country you should consider something other than a 3rd party email provider for those messages. Signal would be a step up in that regard if you still wanted to use a third party.
It’s interesting what people expect of Proton Mail.
It’s quite mundane actually: people expect what they advertise on their front page.
Their advertising is a stretch at the best of times, and (as seen on my first link) so terrible that it needs to be removed at other times.
Lol, ok, fair.
I guess I see a lot of wiggle room in the marketing speak of their page and I haven’t actually “looked in to” Proton Mail’s claims in a loooong time. So I guess what I really wanted to say is that it’s interesting to me that people take that marketing at face value if they’re actually trying to maintain secrecy. I’ve always just taken it as a given that third party services aren’t particularly good at that, especially as they grow in complexity like Proton has. Signal has been easier for me to believe because of the singular focus and the reputation of the founder in the crypto community; although I guess he’s long gone.
They have to comply with court orders. You can’t run a business and ignore the government and legal system; they will throw the book at you.
Don’t use proton to do anything that could be considered a crime in the EU.
This sounds like something you should take up with Proton’s marketing: “Outside of US and EU jurisdiction”
Which is both correct, but makes them still subject to swiss law, and swiss law enforcement will comply with foreign requests - although it took some serious misrepresenting by the French by citing terrorism laws to get the swiss courts to sign the warrant, forcing proton to log the next IP the user used to log in. Had the user used protons own VPN or TOR to login, the resulting data would have been useless.
i’ve been wanting to quit internet anyway…
Stating the obvious.
META was a major lobbyist for all of the state bills we’ve seen so far. There’s probably more. Or META is taking the lead because most hate them already, which provides a nice distraction from anyone else involved.
Tech and data centers want our data. What better way for a complete data set is there? I’m sure Palantir is in there somewhere.
Can we make a new internet?
There’s i2p and freenet as far as I am aware
Yes, have a look at reticulum. No centralized addressing authority. No centralized domain naming system. Everything is globally routeable. It also just got support for transferring HTTP with RServer and MeshBrowser.
What is meshbrowser? Ive done work with reticulum but never heard of MeshBrowser?
I only heard about it a couple of weeks ago. It’s a chromium-based browser that will do regular HTTP over TCP but will also do HTTP over reticulum and you just enter in like http://reticulum_destination_here and it loads the web page. To host HTTP sites you need Rserver which is its companion.
How hard would it be with a bored cop or activist with a $100 scanner off Amazon to find the nodes for a local Reticulum network and knock them down, or identify the people hosting them?
Moderate. Reticulum can work over almost any medium. Ethernet, wifi, LoRa, HF, serial, paper qr codes, etc. If I remember correctly, real-time communication only requires a medium capable of doing 5 bits per second.
I always figured we would go to tor when this day came. But I keep seeing people mention all of these alternatives I have not heard of. Is this reticulum better?
Its decent…but VERY hard to set up. At least at the moment.
Ive played around and contributed a tiny bit over the last couple of years. You basically set it up piecemeal and then you have an actual decentralized server/client setup on a number of devices. Phones, lora, etc… can all work with it.
Ive sent myself some pictures/voice/internet packets via two heltek v3 at one point using nothing but the system and a laptop not connected to the internet. It does what is says on the tin.
But it took quite a bit of time and effort to get there. And while it was neat, no one else is really using it and things go down all the time. So I moved on to “easier” projects like meshtastic/core.
Tor/onion is MUCH easier than using reticulum but also is dependent on quite a number of internet nodes all being up and doing their thing. reticulum can run on the equivalent of 1W (or less) helteks.
Tor is if you can still access the Internet in general. Reticulum is a network that can exist outside the Internet physically, with long-range radio waves. Think Bluetooth, but the waves travel farther, and carry much less information.
Yeah, we ( you guys ) should fork the internet.
There’s Meshtastic and the like ( I think ) but then again what we’ll build there? Another fediverse ? I don’t see the difference with what I have now.
Isn’t there already an au instance that is somewhat complying with age verification by asking security questions?
Shocking news! The sky is blue
That’s quite obviously the end goal here.
This moron also a MAGA appologist and enabler. I left Proton for other alternatives. They want to claim they are “politically nuetral” well if you really were you wouldnt be commenting at all on politics would you?
I must have missed a bunch. I only recall him saying he liked trumps pick for one role.
If you would have read past that part in the same post you could have read that he also thinks republicans are sticking up for the little guy and the democrats are in bed with big tech. After that he also never said anything to the contrary. I also use his product and I wish he were a better guy too, but he said what he said and stuck with it.
So yes, you are either misinformed by not reading past the first few words of his post or disingenuous by purposely leaving out the rest.
And afaik that was it. It has been blown out of proportion many times since by people forming opinions based on headlines. If there was anythung else I’d like to know too though
Oh no, there was much more.
Proton’s official Reddit account posted “Here is our official response,” stating “Until corporate Dems are thrown out, the reality is that Republicans remain more likely to tackle Big Tech abuses.”
Thanks for sharing, I don’t think this is much more. Corporate Dems are an issue and I wish I was in the timeline where Bernie became president. Saying Republicans are better (in 2025) is either extremely naive or insane. Either way, it does not give me the faith I would like to stay with Proton long term. Posting official stuff, pulling it back, now claiming neutrality… confidence is eroded enough.
I have the Duo plan until mid next year and see it as my inbetween from iCloud to self hosting most of my services. Currently trialing Mullvad for the VPN and it can keep up with Proton easily.
Proton VPN and Mullvad will likely have different use cases.
How so? They have differences under the hood, but so far I’ve used them the same way I would any VPN
Only idiots want politically neutral, anyways. I want clear biases for the people open and free forms of communication. That’s HIGHLY political.
Politically neutral supports fascism, always.
Clearly this man is a genius.
Anyone who could not see that Trump was going to extort business for his own personal gain was clueless to Trump and his cabinet of blackmailers.
Anyone of color giving support to White Nationalists is fucking insane and shows a complete lack of understanding of current US politics.
Yeah, but the vast majority are so far beyond clueless they voted for him, again.
Yeah, this was inexcusable. Trump’s been cozying up to the tech billionaires for years.
Crazy I was screamed at on Reddit for pointing out this guys hypocrisy. Glad I left his miserable platform.
Proton Mail Says It’s “Politically Neutral” While Praising Republican Party
lol
The nightmare trap of the Two Party System is that you can look at one party cozying up to Big Tech (Obama in 2009) and conclude the other party must be reflexively in opposition.
Trump was fully surrounded by Thiel goons before he’d even left office in '21. And the relationship only got tighter with his Elon Musk Bromance. But hey, if you’d just elected Kamala Harris and
Liz CheneyTim Walz to the White House, I’m sure nobody would be talking about how much of their cabinet was stuffed with Silicon Valley cutouts.It’s not like a cartel of trillionaires can buy up both parties at once, right?
Sort of, but my point is he made a specific point of praising a demented rapist and lauding the pedophile party as heroes. Silicon Valley cutouts that support Democrats commit the unforgivable sins of praising diversity or working to solve climate problems. They’re not surveilling hospitals for ICE. This guy loves trump because he believes trump has any opinion or knowledge of tech monopolies.
Tone deaf doesn’t cover it. If he sold shoes, it’d be one thing. But he jumped head first into the cesspit for no reason other than he believed it.
And so, even though our opinions on age verification coincidentally align, he can fuck right off.
he made a specific point of praising a demented rapist and lauding the pedophile party as heroes
He made a point of praising a President’s pick for the Antitrust Division of the DOJ. He didn’t praise Trump and he certainly didn’t praise pedophilia.
Slater’s tenure at DOJ was short-lived and unremarkable. So feel free to mock Yen on those grounds. But this has dick all to do with Epstein. It has nothing to do with the bloated ICE budget (which received bipartisan approval) or the assorts nightmarish cabinet appointments, many of which enjoyed supermajority support in the Senate (Rub’em All Out Rubio was appointed unanimously ffs).
he jumped head first into the cesspit for no reason other than he believed it.
He’s a Tech Goon and Trump had a ton of Tech Goons on his team. These people aren’t partisan, they’re corporate lemmings. By 2028, I’m sure Yen will be lining up to brown nose the incoming Dem administration. By 2032, he’ll be back on Team R, shocked at how the party that did everything Tech wanted has betrayed his customers again. Oh, and incidentally, insisting that the only way to protect yourself from Mean Old Big Government is by upping your Proton License to Double Super Secure.
And so, even though our opinions on age verification coincidentally align, he can fuck right off.
He’s endorsing the poison so he can sell the antidote.
He didn’t praise Trump and he certainly didn’t praise pedophilia.
Disagree. “Great job Mr. president!” is praising trump, and praising trump is praising pedophile protectors. It’s noteven a big leap, or unconfirmed rumors. We have multiple witness accounts to his actions and nothing has been done - legally- following the initial release of many documents.
It has nothing to do with the bloated ICE budget (which received bipartisan approval) or the assorts nightmarish cabinet appointments, many of which enjoyed supermajority support in the Senate
Also disagree. Eighth-graders know what trump is about. Andy Yen knows what trump is about. Corruption, fascism, incompetence. Yeah let’s send a hoo-rah tweet to my (whatever # followers)
(Rub’em All Out Rubio was appointed unanimously ffs).
Yeah that’s disgusting. Although I assumed he was just stupid and corrupt, not flat out evil as has revealed himself to be.
These people aren’t partisan, they’re corporate lemmings.
He’s both. There’s no non-partisan support of trump, he’s made sure of it.
By 2028, I’m sure Yen will be lining up to brown nose the incoming Dem administration. By 2032, he’ll be back on Team R, shocked at how the party that did everything Tech wanted has betrayed his customers again.
Yeah, that’s probably right, but all the reason I’m kicking him to the curb now.
I mean, I’ve got boxes full of physical books and self hosted movies and Tv. At that point, I’ll just stop using the internet. I need to go outside more anyway.
The next step will be to make more essential services online only, so people have to use the internet.
Finally all my friends that been giving me shit about having a dvd collection can eat shit.
I put my 500+ collection of DVDs into several of those old CD storage sleeves cases you used to see back in the 90s. They are safe and sound, ready for when things go too far.
Mine are ready to go at a moment notice 🙌
Your TV is missing
This was fun to zoom in on and check the titles. Also, good to see an All Elite fan in the wild.
I’ve been watching wrestling since the late 80s and I enjoy all the promotions. I stopped watching regularly around 2002ish. I came back when AEW debuted. I tried watching WWE but it just lost its spark for me. I keep up with news and clips but I don’t watch the weekly programming.
Any standout movies?
Cube 2 is an obscure gem for me. I really like ‘where are we and how did we get here?’ horror movies. Not sure if you saw Cube 3 but it was… not aa good, lmao.
I have only seen the first one, but I did hear Cube Zero was the weakest of the lot.
Disc rot is still a thing. Warner Bros DVDs produced between 2005 and 2009 are especially affected.
Yeah. You probably want to rip them asap. But that would be quite a PITA with that many DVDs
Did not know that and will now be ripping as many as I can.
I’ve got a mean collection myself. I have saved every cassette, record , DVD , VHS , book , magazine ( some bit the dust but anything with good info stayed) , zine and CD I’ve ever baught since I was a young teen ( and their many versions of various players for the many formats)
I’ve had more than a few people appear angry that I have kept all these “things” in my life. Blows my mind that they never saw this coming. …I guess I can rent my dad’s and books
I was finally ready to clean out my closet and get rid of all my old movies and games. But now…
Exactly, well go a step back, communities will thrive.
My mother in law got me essentially the bible of DIY gardens for the Flemish region. I learned that there are differences just in tool styles an hour drive away from eachother already.
I could read that for a years and still learn things!
Harder to organize protests though. Like if they implement a new renter’s/homeowner tax, or sales tax, or whatever, that means we’d have to sell our books to make ends meet. And then make “digitally inciting” protests illegal too maybe so you don’t feel comfortable even discussing it on your devices. (Not that our opsec today is sufficient, wager it’s not for like 95+% of us, but this feels yet worse)
Scary stuff
Good to know that you will have your entertainment while the world gets turned into an authoritarian hellhole.
At least they’re not a pathetic internet troll. Get a hobby dude. Being angry at the world doesn’t count.
You just missed the point entirely.
The reaction to this should not be “oh no, my entertainment”, but “oh no, my information, my communication, my freedom”. Killing anonymity online does a lot more than take way your free entertainment, so while it’s cool that you will have your books and dvds and all, that’s besides the entire point. The internet is an integral part of society now, you can’t just go back to pre-internet offline times because that world is gone and once the new world turns into this authoritarian hellscape, we will be stuck with it.
Oh I see you’re the same guy stalking me across multiple comments.
To the blocklist you go.
I knew you didnt read anything you were responding to.
Ya I checked to see if you are as thoughtless as you’re portraying yourself. You are.
People forget that the current antitrust actions against Big Tech were started under the first Trump admin
His earlier words did not age well
