Misinformation has been the backbone of campaigning and lobbying for generations. It's suddenly a threat, because the people performing it are afraid YOU may be able to, also.
I'm not convinced the other offerings are actually secure.
For example[1]:
> However, if he controls the responsible DHCP server, he can simply command end devices to send their data past the VPN. To do this, it sends the DHCP option 121 with a corresponding route –, for example, to redirect all DNS queries. The VPN's own encryption is omitted, but the VPN connection is maintained so that the user is unaware of the attack.
> Leviathan Security has reproduced the problem with Windows, Linux, iOS and MacOS – but the attack does not work with Android because Android ignores the DHCP option 121.
Section 230 prevents small hosts from going to jail because somebody illicitly used their site for pirate uploads or illegal speech. Don't be naive. No section 230 means no 'small internet', because anybody can get you criminally charged.
The removal of comparative protections in the UK is why British web communities collapsed, from small forums to huge communities like Liveleak. We shouldn't pretend this is good.
This is nonsensical. First off, if someone illicitly uses your site for something Section 230 isn't what is protecting you from that: if I hack into your computers and inject a bunch of content onto it, you aren't somehow more liable than if I went to your building in the middle of the night and graffitied something illegal all over it just because it uses a computer: you were also a victim.
As for "small web forums", that's still centralized, and still bad (and frankly is often worse, as the smaller players tend to have poorer data control policies)! I don't want anyone, anywhere, at any scale controlling centralized forums :/.
If you want to build an online gathering place, maybe it is in fact a very very good thing if it has to be built using decentralized end-to-end encryption with customizable endpoint filtering, and the "web forum" becomes a relic of the past.
It should be hard to build a centralized web service. There should be any number of scary liabilities that come with doing such, and that is frankly the only way we are ever going to get to a decentralized future, as, otherwise, yes: as it stands, we are essentially subsidizing the existence of centralized services.
And maybe we needed to do this in the 90s and 00s, but we now live in a world with a lot better understanding of encryption and a lot better understanding of peer-to-peer services and if we just stopped tolerating centralized services enough to force everyone to deal with the always-will-be-a-bit-worse experience of decentralized ones, we can escape this ad-infused dystopia (and remember: even the small players use ads, and their ads are again often worse).
You can make any part of the Pyramids with primitive hand tools. In fact, material scientists have, to prove a point. Quartz is harder than the stone used for them, and diorite can be used to to smooth quartz.
More than an ordinary laborer, much more than an agricultural slave, and you also had social esteem and a higher spiritual acclaim. This all means a LOT in a highly stratified society, like Ancient Egypt. You don't give such things to slaves.
Some of the Pyramids were the largest structures in human history until the industrial age. They're definitely worthy of being considered their own category.
No, they aren't. They actively remove content that has been subject to a legitimate takedown request. As has been the case many times when I've tried to use them for piracy.
If you haven’t been able to use them for piracy then you’re not trying terribly hard. I downloaded a game directly from IA that’s still actively being sold yesterday.
I don’t doubt that they respond to takedown requests, I just think they need to be more proactive about stuff.
It's ridiculous to blame a decades long ethnic conflict that already had established routes of propaganda through the state on Facebook. You can also see no noticeable increase in violence correlating with internet access.
I'm not blaming the entire ethnic conflict on Facebook. I'm saying Facebook made it worse and, through reckless neglect, contributed to deaths of people that otherwise wouldn't have died.
reply