Recent comments

abralelie wrote

Reply to What do you i2p for? by not_bob

Honestly, not much yet. I'm waiting on services from the clearnet to be accessible on I2P. Also, it's really slow so besides text and images, I can't consume videos reasonably. They'd have to load for a few minutes before being watchable.

I2P doesn't have that killer app or service yet. It needs something like PopcornTime or Napster (yeah, I'm old) that can excite the masses. People don't care about privacy or anonymity, just that stuff looks nice, is free and works fluidly; that's what I2P needs.

What would y'all consider a killer app for I2P?

1

Rambler wrote (edited )

Reply to If the D*nald Tru*p tries to post here, will Ramble ban it? by localworldwar

I'm secure enough as a person to let people who have different views than myself post on the private platform that I share with you.

So, yeah? I guess.

Raddle is a joke. I got banned from there for supporting free speech.

So, some people complain how Reddit is too heavy on the censorship, right? Raddle complains that there isn't ENOUGH censorship on places like reddit. Fuck 'em, is all I got to say.

5

DefenderOfTruth wrote

Reply to comment by Rambler in Reddit Bans ‘r/donaldtrump’ Subreddit by Rambler

Ditto with the indifference.

The golden age of America is over in my eyes. 2020 was the “over the hill” party. Now is the time for individuals to shine, and they will, but the infrastructure as a whole is already burning down.

Trump is a business man. This was a business venture for him and whether he wanted to reform America or not, I’m not sure. Power is power and anyone in the elite circle will never be truly trustworthy in my eyes.

3

Rambler OP wrote

Reply to "We need more than deplatforming" - Mozilla talks about politics. by Rambler

From the article:

Additional precise and specific actions must also be taken:

Okay, cool. What?

Reveal who is paying for advertisements, how much they are paying and who is being targeted.

Political advertising? Sure. Make sure you do both sides.

Commit to meaningful transparency of platform algorithms so we know how and what content is being amplified, to whom, and the associated impact.

Or people could just ditch social media, it provides no value to your life. Algorthims are designed specifically to engage you, to show you content that keeps you on the site. This allows better collection of data about you, and ensures you see the most relevant advertising. We already know 'how they work' and the associated 'impact'. big tech isn't your friend. It's not you're nanny. You're the product.

Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation.

Gonna be a big NO from me. We've seen time and time again that big tech can not be trusted to provide 'additional context' and 'factual information' when they do it with a heavy handed bias and increased selectivity. Fuck Firefox for even suggesting that.

Work with independent researchers to facilitate in-depth studies of the platforms’ impact on people and our societies, and what we can do to improve things.

Just stick to making Firefox not suck. Stay out of politics. For fucks sake.

The answer is not to do away with the internet, but to build a better one that can withstand and gird against these types of challenges. This is how we can begin to do that.

There they are again with the, "build a better internet" lingo. How about: No. Maybe I'm all alone in feeling this and people here will support a more restrictive clearnet. But I'm very much against it.

6

solstice wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by Rambler in What do you do to increase your privacy? Do you seek anonimity? by dandrews

And all I posted was the same, since I enjoy landscape photography and nature in general. I can view that stuff anywhere, but haven't found a place (yet) to really share some of the work I do or have done.

You could set up a Pixelfed instance. It's like a self-hosted, federated (ActivityPub) Instagram.

3

Wahaha wrote

Reply to What do you do to increase your privacy? Do you seek anonimity? by dandrews

Not as much as I could and I have no illusion of attaining anonymity. I try to walk a path towards more anonymity, but I'm walking it very slowly. In the end I'm compromising a lot for convenience. Like the saying goes, security at the expense of convenience goes at the expense of security.

3

Rambler wrote (edited )

Reply to Twitter Bans President Trump, Citing 'Risk Of Further Incitement Of Violence' by awdrifter

Jesus Christ. I'm not even really a Trump guy but this is insane.

This is literally one of if not the last public archive of his twitter account: https://web.archive.org/web/20210107000120/https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

Where is the incitement of violence?

Big tech and MSM need to be the focus of people's anger, on both the left and on the right.

3

Rambler OP wrote (edited )

Reply to Reddit Bans ‘r/donaldtrump’ Subreddit by Rambler

Here is the last archive of the subreddit before it was banned:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210107171401/https://old.reddit.com/r/donaldtrump/

I don't see "calls for violence".

I'm indifferent on Trump. The guy has done some great things and some not so great things as far as I'm concerned during his presidency. One thing is certain though is that subreddit didn't appear to inciting anything. Just more big tech trying to disenfranchise half the country. Sucks, because most large communities are giant echo chambers as a result of this divide. I don't want to be in a right or left wing echo chamber .

5

Rambler wrote (edited )

Reply to Trump deletes tweets after being banned from Twitter [Updated] | Ars Technica by awdrifter

Imagine companies that are so powerful that they can force the most powerful man in the world to self censor. Big Tech is flexing their power in this election to force other politicians to fall in line.

It's bizarre. I didn't even see anything remotely inciteful in the tweets I've seen shared in articles.

Furthermore, I believe he's still banned from Facebook? Big Tech has a left/liberal bias and needs to be put in check. While these are private platforms that 'can do whatever they want', I believe things like Twitter and Facebook have replaced the traditional 'soap box' in the town square. The 1st Amendment should, in my opinion, apply to large non-topic specific platforms.

The better option would be for people to just leave these companies and close their accounts.

The same platforms who have to add 'additional context' to certain topics don't seem to see the need to add 'additional context' to content/videos/tweets that incite violence by the left. It's how a second wave of looting/riots happened in Minneapolis after a black man shot himself in the head, captured on video, but photos/videos of cops at the crime scene was shared on social media with captions about how the cops killed him. Within 8-12 hours the police had published CCTV footage showing the man killed himself, yet the tweets/media/claims by ONE SIDE remained up, and it contributed to more stores being robbed/looted and more violent protests. No, "Additional Context" on that content to state that the man was a "murder suspect running from police who took his own life". If they have the ability to put claims and context on other topics, surely they can do the same when a criminal is refusing orders and charging the police with a knife and gets shot.

In short: Fuck big tech. They control the narrative, always.

3