You can make anonymous accounts, but there’s a difference between ‘breadguy’ and ‘anon’. Who is literally everyone posting on the board. In the chan world so called namefags are shunned and not thought of as true channers. By having an identifiable name it gives you some measure of reputation, a name that you may hold some regard for, or at least that others could decide if they want to listen to or block.

I actually like to think of the chan boards as an experiment in social studies. What happens when you allow for purely repression and repercussion free interaction? There are plenty of people who will say and do some absurd things when they’re drunk that they wouldn’t dare to sober. What happens when that sense of untouchability is available at any time just by going to a website.

Anyplace that allows, or in the case of 4chan, encourages purely Anon posting is going to be a cesspit. When there’s no accountability, no ID of any sort (even a screen name) to tie actions against then there’s no reputation to protect. It might be pleasant at first, but you can bet it won’t stay that way for long.

I was wondering if someone might recognize that

The chair is against the wall and John has a long moustache.

I only recently came to know of this company when I was looking for an upgrade for the old Logitech ones I’ve been using for Recalbox. Sounds like someone I’ll have to get familiar with.

Phones became more frequently used for apps and posting which is a pain on a tiny screen. I built a pi zero powered retro console but actually using the tiny screen of about 3" makes it near impossible to read anything.

I would like to see things return to having replaceable batteries, headphones jacks and maybe slide out keys, but if I have to type and read on the same screen it’s awful nice to have some room to work with.

You call it a falicy, but to propose that covering your eyes and ears makes the problem go away is hardly a solution.

My issue is not the removal of bad content from the community, but the enforcement of it at a software level.

Much like any other software in the fedi system there can be seen as three levels of the community:

1: The global fedi where instances communicate across to each other, or in the case of problem instances, don’t and they’re cut off.

2: The local instance (or pod as they’re called in this case) with a few to many thousand users each where local rules are enforced by community admins.

3: The individual where you have the choice to follow certain people/groups or not and block those you see as problems.

Now those three layers make for a pretty potent filtration system in themselves making the baked in decisions by the software author fairly redundant at best, but that’s not the end point. Say someone for whatever reason had a reason to store an archive of propaganda for studies, and they mean to share that with colleges in some project. They may set up a private pod or a few in a small collective to accomplish the goal. Forcing that filter at the software level makes it impossible to do in that way.

So there’s already a nazi filter around the system in the form of this multi step sieve for banning these things, doing so at the software level though puts a censors button in the hands of a single person or small group of people who then exercise control over even niche cases where private collections are affected.

Indeed, the way to combat bad media is to dispute it with good media, not hide it away and pretend it doesn’t exist.

Somewhat harder to do in the context of music like the app in question, but still not wrong. I keep copies of some old wartime propaganda cartoons around just for the ability to put context when talking about past events, despite them being pretty tasteless by modern standards.

Right, but for them to do so requires a level of monitoring what you use and open piece of software for, which is unacceptable to me. If you had an old style mp3 player that refused to play certain songs it would be seen as broken at best. If that selection of songs got updated at the discretion of some third party you start walking into ministry of truth territory.

This is different from something like YouTube or whatever hosted service refusing to platform content, this would cross into directly controlling personal consumption by forced removal. We call it bad when people start banning books, but it’s ok so long as it’s our person selecting the bans?

The existence of Mien Kamph in a library’s collection doesn’t make the librarian a Nazi, and it doesn’t force the content onto the public.

Yeah, I don’t even know how you would do that but if a platform I’m hosting and managing tries to tell me what content is or isn’t permissable it’s going in the bin.

Don’t need some big brother crap on my system controlling what I do with my hardware.

There’s a function built into Thunderbird to create keys, and I think publish the public cert directly to the MIT repo.

Indeed they do use 11x but it’s still a possibility to cause issues. It’s entirely possible to manage a fleet of IPs across a net but it takes a solid plan organization plan. My company is big on the acquiring companies game where IP overlaps are a perpetual challenge when merging sites in and you need a mess of snat/dnat conversions to keep routing from getting in a knot.

Wherever a service with encryption exists any government in the world thinks they need to be the special child with the access to the contents.

E2E with privately generated and held keys, have you published your PGP public key yet?

While handy on a personal net, on a larger corporate net this isn’t practical and even adds a security risk. By having servers request leases you run the chance that someone gets into a segment, funds the ARP association for an IP/MAC combo and can take over a server’s spot simply by spoofing their own MAC to match at the time of lease renewal.

In the post above about setting a static address in two spots that in itself isn’t required either. So long as there are no duplicates you would just set the static address on the end device, then the network will sort it out with ARP ‘who has’ requests in local segments, or routing in the case of distinct subnets.

Edit: the duplicate I suppose could be referring to putting names into a DNS registry, in which case yes you would need that double entry, or just reference things by IP if the environment is small enough for it to be practical.

He - and if there is a God, I am convinced he is a he, because no woman could or would ever fuck things up this badly.

-George Carlin

I’ve used plenty of them with no problems for years. Just so long as you have redundancy in place like a good RAID setup there’s little risk of losing anything.

I have a genius system quite similar to that from the early 1900s called a laundry chute, but it works on a magic force called gravity rather than hooking up a pneumatic tube like I’m at a bank drive up.

He’s like that over confident political blowhard on the internet who picked up on one term used in policy at some point and tried to wedge it in as the appropriate answer to everything.

Did you happen to unplug the external drive when it was moved? Could wonder if the device ID got changed and the server can’t find the old location for the library any longer.

In the simplest sense, a separation of duties. If the judge was to be the sole decider of what is worth consideration then you have this individual functioning as an unquestioned king.

No single person is going to know every case, consider every angle, and have an inclination to pursue all points of view. Even the supreme court receives amicus briefs to guide a case.

An attorney has a duty to get the best possible outcome for their client, even if they disagree with what the client may have done. A single person judiciary could never have that position because they are effectively advocating both sides to themselves.