iamnothere

It would let you log in (even though you shouldn’t). Most “locked down” computers still allow things like USB drives and Yubikeys.

The problem with Lemmy is that every instance seems to treat itself as an insular fiefdom that bans dissenters. It’s the same problem scaled up. Instances can cross-post in theory, but often people seem to treat the domain as a tribal affiliation, and mods may block subs or even entire domains based on petty disagreements.

I think Nostr solves this problem; individual relays may block certain accounts, but there’s no tribal signifier for preemptive blocking, and you can still get data from blocked accounts by using other relays. It would be very hard to get all relays to collaborate to fully block an account (and in any case you could spin up your own relay if this happened).

The “Satellite” client used to have a Reddit-like presentation, although they seem to have converted back to a Twitter-like feed—not sure why, perhaps it wasn’t a popular format. (The protocol is capable of Reddit-like communities.) I guess “Stacker News” is the current champion for Reddit-ish clients, although it’s more akin to HN or maybe Tildes. It’s a shame that it’s so crypto-focused.

This is why you should use physical tokens like Yubikey.

But don’t log in to important accounts on a public computer, like ever, unless it’s a dire emergency.

If you marry someone you don’t trust, you’re going to have a lot more problems than password compromise.

I don’t see hardware tokens (like Yubikey) in the list. Those are the only ones that provide a true second factor, to protect against the theft or compromise of your primary device.

I’m a little afraid that hardware tokens are getting lost in all the passkey marketing BS. At least they continue to work for now.

Works great, they even have ones with USB on one side and Lightning on the other for older iPhones.

Yes, just like Elizabeth Holmes. Or Hwang Woo-suk’s stem cell cloning. Or the many “free energy” crackpots. Or the people promoting radium baths for random ailments. Or Tesla’s late-in-life claims about wireless energy, death rays, and cosmic energy. Or the myriad purveyors of “snake oil” and all manner of “tonics”. The list goes on and on.

These controls exist, but the more options there are, the weaker the controls are. I’m in favor of weakening them as much as possible to reduce potential chokepoints.

The more alternatives, the better.

Right, I’m all for carving up or cutting out central US gatekeepers (including here at home), I just don’t think single centralized systems like Pix are necessarily better. For sovereignty, yes, but not for individual liberties. Government shouldn’t have a direct lever to instantly cut off your payments or control your spending.

Obviously, centralized is centralized whether it’s private or public. Both are bad.

However, parallel centralized private systems with strong safeguards are slightly better than a single public system. But only slightly. Public centralized payments create turnkey totalitarianism, which is never a good idea.

What the industry badly needs is antitrust enforcement.

This sits at an interesting nexus: I don’t like centralized digital payment systems, especially those run by the government, and I don’t like the destruction of cash. But interference in another country’s system of monetary exchange seems worse. I guess this is a case where everyone is the bad guy.

We’re quickly becoming a nation of cradle to grave surveillance, from networked baby monitors after birth to cameras in the schools (and now college dorms), cameras at work, cameras where you shop, cameras on the roads, cameras in your car, cameras where you die. It’s still unusual to have cameras inside the home after early childhood, unless you have a robot vacuum or certain TVs, but I’m sure that’s the next frontier. (Those might even be redundant with wifi motion/wifi sensing on ISP routers and ubiquitous “smart” microphones.)

I still can’t believe how quickly this all came about. Cameras were rare and obvious when I was young. And we mostly just let it happen.

It’s ironic that Chinese “nail house” owners get more property rights than US citizens in the The Land of the Free (tm).

Note: you don’t need to “download the browser” to use Tor. Tor is a service, not a browser. The “Tor Browser” bundles a privacy-friendly browser with the Tor service, for your convenience. You can run a Tor site on your headless server without installing any browser at all.

Linux won’t, but wait until LG ships a low bitrate 4G IoT card in future monitors for ACR!

If you publish controversial material, better start embracing onion backup domains now. Most people don’t know how to use them yet, but I get the feeling there will be a turning point soon.

Should/do we allow foreign propaganda radio stations?

How do you define this? Is it foreign owned? Noncitizens are not guaranteed the same rights, especially citizens of hostile foreign powers.

If we accept that the government can (and very much does) impose itself on content platforms for "national security"

Why should we accept this?

what exactly is the difference between deliberately insidious information warfare, and collateral damage from market incentives?

None, both are concepts not found in the Constitution (if you’re talking about domestic speech by citizens) and both are protected by 1A.

I don’t care in the slightest about your fearmongering national security nonsense.

In times long ago, those who owned a very expensive printing press and distribution networks had a significant advantage in reach. As did those with the money to pay writers and staff.

Regardless, this doesn’t change anything about the first amendment, because changes in technology and their consequences don’t alter the Constitution. If you think free speech needs a separate concept of “reach” then you need to pass an amendment.

Too bad all the old “rightful” standbys have gone rogue, while rapidly losing their capacity to effect change.

It’s almost like we need a robust system of checks and balances, governed some kind of rigid framework to ensure that everyone plays by the rules. Or we could just continue to ignore that and see what happens.

Apparently NYC requires an inexpensive permit, this approach is sometimes allowed to balance competing uses.

That specific case is why I brought this up, no they aren’t illegal, this is Making Shit Up and exaggerating beyond what actually happened. But if people like you got your way, they could be made illegal.

Good and bad things both exist independent of your preferences.

While we’re just stretching metaphors to fit our preferences, comments like yours are so odious that they are akin to an open sewer, and should be regulated for public health reasons. Am I doing this right?

Well just throw it all out the window then, if we’re not going to pay attention to the constitution. First things first, let’s make a law to ban you.

If you’re just going to pick and choose what rights you apply, then it’s not much of a governing document, is it? Is this just “Parliament is Sovereign” with extra fluff? Might makes right?

Not if they violate rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights and later amendments.

Tell me you’ve never done serious graphic design work without telling me

Times Square is a physical place with limited space. It has multiple uses and the road or sidewalk you’re standing on is a publicly owned thoroughfare. Your megaphone might damage the hearing of non-audience passerby if you have it turned up really loud.

That said, such a regulation would actually be unconstitutional unless it’s narrowly aimed at real concerns like blocking traffic. Snyder v. Phelps established that you can go protest with signs saying “God Hates F*gs” and yell at people during a military funeral. Believe it or not, sometimes free speech may be distasteful and disruptive.

The virtual world is very different. The audience is willing, there’s no passerby, no blocking traffic. Competing rights go out the window.

You’d need a Constitution that allows laws regarding speech. And probably a mechanism to prevent legislators from assigning excessive penalties.

It’s not about whether the law meets some abstract notion of good or bad, it’s about whether it is even possible to enact under the framework that governs us. Under the Constitution as it stands, it wouldn’t be possible.

Yes, my point is that things like illuminated signs or loudspeakers can actually physically affect neighbors, so speech concerns have to be balanced against other concerns. Often the speech still wins, but not always.

We’re talking apples and oranges because a website is more like a book than an illuminated sign. You have to decide to view it, and it doesn’t shine through your window at night, disturbing the peaceful enjoyment of your home.

Can they? Why haven’t they enforced this yet?

It may be that this isn’t as settled as you think when speech concerns are present. The existence of alternative accessible formats, or sufficient assistive technology in the marketplace, may be just as compliant. It’s likely that these will be favored over mandating changes that affect design or presentation, given the Court’s prior decisions on balancing speech concerns in other areas.