socialism would mean kids sharing % of the candies with the family and parents sharing % of on their salaries with the family. ain't a dystopia — we all buy our kids food and healthcare, no? 😅

not trying to defend authoritarian "socialism" tho :DD

I think that social media's shittiness, as Jack said, «is much more about freedom of will than freedom of speech»: many people (thought not all!) never actually ever get censored — yet ·everybody· will be manipulated with algorithms to believe something they didn't believe in, hate something they didn't hate, and SPEND SPEND SPEND more time in the app, watch more ads, spend more money ordering something purely imposed, consume-consume-consume. IMHO.

yo, check storj as a greatest cloud drive out there, and brave browser & brave search as an options!

also, invidious and newpipe (?) are dead :((

Odysee is the best (by that I mean the most successful) alternative so far — own back end, no ads, IPFS for videos (thua decentralized), etc etc

openvibe

>signal

as well as tor & tails.

didn't find any source about how much simplex servers is out there. cannot add anything to that claim.

could you source the 11 server clime? also, please do detail about funding & origin, because, as I said, tor, tails, signal, lots of privacy apps are funded or even originally created by governments — doesn't necessarily mean they're not trustable

meanwhile I'll search the source for SimpleX server count.

wha? we have quantum computers working already, man. we know exactly /how/ they will be able to brute force, when they get stronger, and how to make them unable to process some algorithm. it's not even close to aliens resistance — that might actually be a threat. people at already downloading huge encrypted databases according to "download-now-decrypt-later" technique

fair

posted the post, forgor to add the image :(((

https://nostrcheck.me/media/5c8a576582b8aba3793f2abc5f2a52c1325a900a0a94be0f1cbcc70f4fc5edee/fa4887eeba6852fc391193f146417705b62aa5b256aae36086bc7b8fd8789dc6.webp

Interestingly, if we believe Zach Vorhies' list of queries that Google censors [1], it censors both right-wing (rightwingnews.com, chicksontheright.com, rightsidenews.com, rightsidenews.com, yesimright.com) and left-wing queries & websites (liberalamerica.org, modernliberals.com, trueactivist.com, libertynewsnow. com); as well as both conservative (“abortion is wrong,” “abortion is murdering,” “Abortion and the Catholic Church,” “immigrant NYC shooting” in youtube) and liberal (“Pro abortionists,” “Abortion Rights Campaign Ireland,” “Rape Crisis Network,” gaybuzzer.com, judgybitch.com); both pro-Republican (ilovemyfreedom.com, donaldtrumpnews.co, trumpinsurrection. com, 34 inquiries related to “anti trump” [shooter]) and pro-democracy (democraticreview.com, advocate.com); both pro-state (patriotjournal.com, angrypatriotmovement.com, supremepatriot.com, proud-patriots.com) and anti-state (thelibertarianrepublic.com, tipsforsurvivalists.com); furthermore, exmormons (reddit.com/r/exmormon), embroidery forums (www.knittingparadise.com), a whole bunch of political events (“truck incident,” “terrorist attack,” “plane crash in russia,” “911”) and the worst conspiracy theories (“colgate on penis,” “abortion increases breast cancer,” “cancer cure” — meaning dangerous & proven-as-false self-treatments, not actual attempts to cure the cancer).

Also, the list contains a bunch of repetition. Assuming it's real, it seems that either it was sketched by regular employees/dumbest AI, or Google consciously censors farther “edgy” than political points (right or left, authoritarian or anti-authoritarian), because the masses are easier to control when they don't revolt (even for ridiculous/conspiracy reasons). That doesn't mean we need to riot over every conspiracy bullshit to oppose the state (but we do need to riot for real ones). It also doesn't mean that Google doesn't use real, serious censorship to manipulate opinions. Just Zach Vorhies lists are, perhaps, not a good proof for that.

What do you think?

[1] https://www.zachvorhies.com/blacklists/index.html

(image by nostr:npub12345kcha3wnw9afydkzku6rje98asle8rlmxadfxd4kras738l6qwph7k5; would be interested to hear the opinion of nostr:npub14slk4lshtylkrqg9z0dvng09gn58h88frvnax7uga3v0h25szj4qzjt5d6)

on simplex there are not thousands, but hundreds of unofficial servers. tho you're correct about putting a backdoor into a one mainly-used-by-everyone client is easier, than into a lot of different clients. yet, this has also another side: if the code is open and has only one version, there's more eyes on it than if the eyes are spreaded onto a lot of different clients. it also backslashes: if there's a lot of clients, CIA can make its own — taking its budget into account it will be even easier to make a good looking honeypot than to insert a new backdoor into an already watched app. "just use the serious clients"? yeah let's limit clients to only one trustable, like simplex did.

also, the government funds lots of shit: tor, tails, signal... doesn't mean they're automatically becoming bad apps becos of that (but I bet they hope we think so)

I'm open to change my mind if I'm wrong, so please answer, if you disagree

pov

>literally fucking about privacy as loud as possibly can

>for many years

>even with such radicalism like "don't use secure emails: SELF-HOST, SELF-HOST CALENDARS, MAPS, READ OPEN SOURCED CODES YOURSELF, CREATE OWN ANDROID BASED OS'

>yet still get called a fed for inviting dawgs into a simplex channel

we shall not forget, that CIA has two ways to track us: creating honeypots / hacking into apps, and blaming too-secure-to-be-hacked-apps as created by CIA, pushing people away from them to using honeypots / hackable apps.

I always think about this, when hear that Tor, Monero, Tails or else is a CIA's honeypot

Ah! Pardon my mistake, I thought you talking about the 1998 fraud where they claimed false link between vaccines and autism.

Changes almost nothing about my message tho:

Still cool, when the journal does not deny something being being disproved by more studies, and retracts the paper without denialism and ideological protecting

Still that's why I trust meta-analyses more than single studies.

Still, if you want to hear sources with no history of fraud, I can send them. Perhaps two mistakes in 25 years is actually too much for a journal to be trustable.

Cool, when the journal does not deny something being being disproved by more studies, and retracts the paper, aye? I wish we all could be so science-, not ideology-based.

Also, that's why I trust meta-analyses more than single studies.

If you want to hear sources with no history of fraud, I can send them. Personally though, I don't think that one shitty point 26 years ago proves something to be not trustworthy forever-from-now-on — Signal was hacked once, but we don't think it's now always vulnerable, or furthermore sponsored by CIA. Tor was traced once, same shit, etc etc.

I think misusing here means "using in bad faith", not "using in a wrong way"

can't wait to hear a new speech from nostr:npub12rrvutnfeu9677d4yjytypqccjn0njnm6zkx2j6xyn2uqfw02ldsrl8ty9 about how much he hates monero

yo nostr:npub14slk4lshtylkrqg9z0dvng09gn58h88frvnax7uga3v0h25szj4qzjt5d6 your thought on last monero news?

How can I debate with you, if everything I send "is a fraud, it's sponsored by the government, it's a fraud, they're lying and doing frauds"? I mean, I don't know how to argue with you, if you prefer trusting some random politically-supporting-your-views blogs more than peer-reviewed neutrally sponsored studies, made in countries with weak or strong governments, social-democracy or wild capitalism, still all coming to the same conclusions. It really feels like an ideological attempt to resist the facts for protecting something you used to believe in.

It's incorrect to say that Pfizer "admitted" that the company and its partner BioNTech did not test whether their mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine reduced virus transmission prior to rolling it out, because Pfizer was always clear it did not test whether the vaccines reduced the risk of transmission among already-infected individuals.

But the trial did show the vaccines reduced infection risk in the first place, so reduced the risk of onward infection.

Within months of the vaccine hitting the market, researchers in the UK (https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-tra-idUKKBN2AQ1A7) and Israel (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00127-7/fulltext) began publishing studies suggesting that the Pfizer vaccine was reducing transmission of the virus.

In February 2021, for example, Israeli data (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00448-7/fulltext) showed a sharp drop in infections among healthcare workers within 15-28 days of receiving the two-shot Pfizer vaccine series, indicating the vaccine was not just preventing symptomatic disease, but also preventing the virus from being passed from person to person.

I can send more data. I can also send some blog text with an eagle flying in front of the yellow flag on the article image, which sources the claims with "just think about it fam" saying same shit, if you trust that more.

Step out of the bubble.

P.S. According to right‐libertarian literature there is a considerable divergence between the application of consistent libertarian principles to this issue by academic libertarians and the strident opposition to vaccination programmes and vaccine mandates expressed by people who profess to be libertarians in the public‐political debate: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9111279/

please don't debate seriously with someone who wants to get pedophilia unironically legalized ( ･ั﹏･ั)

«зачем мне конфиденциальность, мне нечего скрывать»

>Uber обвиняют в том, что его сервисы стоят дороже, если у человека мало зарядки на телефоне при заказе (потому что человек в нужде найти такси побыстрее)