I don't have a responsibility to you unless I choose to. Whether about hard drive access or anything else.
I am choosing to uphold the voluntary responsibility of "keep answering about image hosting", but since we're not talking about that anymore....
You fail to wrap your head around the simple premise I'm explaining.
When you control communication infrastructure, and you use that control to limit democratic discourse, you are increasing the other kind of democracy. It's an inherent reality of living in a physical world with other humans.
And we do all have responsibility to each other as humans - that's why I hope you don't put yourself in a position to starve to death because other people's file sizes hurt your fee fees.
Well this is easy now: I disagree.
I _prefer_ if people do nice things for each other, but nobody is obligated to do so (what if they refuse? Kill em? Lock em up?)
Nobody is coming after private server owners, much less random cloud storage customers. Most people don't care about petty issues like that, and even to someone like me who does care, it's still a petty issue. However, I think we're right smack at the brink of a big population collapse and everyone's choices impact. Petty shit like this will cause indirect consequences, hence the obligation, not with any direct consequences attached.
I am not controlling things for anyone else.
Everyone controls their own stuff.
Literally the opposite of "someone else controls my stuff", you see? I run my own relay; you do not run my relay. You can't touch my communication infrastructure.
The problem you are pointing to is "what about people who cannot afford stuff to control". Yes, that is a **different** problem.
If you have an online server or pay lots of cloud server bills, you're in on the global scheme to control communication infrastructure. It's moved from TV and radio to the internet but it's still the same thing - give those who are part of the club a platform, ban enemies from the platform, give the platform extremely imbalanced impact over public discussion partly by pretending it's much more inclusive and representative of the general public than it really is (hiding the censorship and exclusion as much as possible).
Again, if people want sovereign property that's also communication infrastructure, it would be best to work in a team where one person assassinates the president and the others fund the servers, condone the assassination on the basis that people who can't afford centralized online storage are banned from storing and transmitting their own shit, and challenge any attempts to shut them down on a first amendment basis, so that the servers can operate without the operators being in on the censorship.
Nobody has done that, so server operators are basically just a textbook example of typical petrodollar transactions saying "I'm so ready for the mass deaths we're heading for, I'm not even thinking for 2 seconds about where my money goes."
I meant private server operators in particular here. A much easier approach is to just not see your communication infrastructure as sovereign property because you haven't earned it with sovereign authority since your group doesn't have anyone willing to take one for the team by assassinating the president to assert your right to sovereign communication infrastructure.
What is this assassinating the president thing you keep reverting to? I'm missing this point, but you keep making it everywhere, so it seems important.
And who is "my group"? I'm me.
Without a group, you definitely cannot claim sovereignty over communication infrastructure in this day and age. I have zero faith in one individual's ability to BOTH assassinate the president AND keep a server online indefinitely. I also can't think of any other possibilities where one of the other possible ways to exert sovereignty would be compatible with keeping a server online for one person. If you're only one person, you must just be using the shared communication infrastructure that belongs to everyone, where everyone needs help overthrowing the saboteurs running it.
You keep saying "give". what do you mean "give"? "give a platform"?
How about you think about "building a platform", and stop thinking in terms of who is giving who what with what permissions. You're on a permissionless network and you're obsessing over who allows what...
TAKE control of a sovereign platform, if you want. nobody is stopping you. Set up a server in your closet, put a nostr relay on it, become the system you want to see in the world. Provide the Shrek 2 hosting service to the homeless. build your commune!
The people who built the platforms you're using gave them to you and largely ban me from them. Nostr is an attempt to resist this.
I have time to think about building platforms AND think about who is giving who what, with what permissions. These topics matter and are worth time.
There are many people with guns stopping me from "taking control of a sovereign platform." Look up the FCC. You're sucking big tech dick for the people who use that tech to do censorship.
