No. Of course not. I put it in quotes since I was being sarcastic.

but Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, can’t even get the mental health services he obviously needs

Lmfao

I’d rather get healthcare at all. I’ve been too poor to afford any medical care at points in my life, I’d settle for even some low quality care as opposed to none at all and hoping that this new weird pain either is insignificant and goes away without issue, or it gently takes me out in the night.

I’m excited to see where pirate medicine goes. I’ve met a trans woman who told me that her DIY HRT was life changing in the best possible way, and I can only dream of what would happen if people started making their own Insulin or T or whatever

I fucking love pirate medicine. Fuck the US healthcare system, what good is having the “best healthcare in the world” if you can’t even afford mediocre healthcare?

I’m not familiar with taoism, and I do not understand the point you are trying to make. I’ve read the chapter on this site.

I think you are talking about this paragraph:

Therefore when Tao is lost, there is goodness. When goodness is lost, there is kindness. When kindness is lost, there is justice. When justice is lost, there is ritual. Now ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion.

I don’t get what you are trying to say. Are you saying that Li is Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_(neo-Confucianism)), or in the quote I have, ritual? Are you saying I’m an advocate for Justice in the sense of this quote? I think you are either misunderstanding me (I know I am not understanding what you are saying since it is unclear), or ascribing a set of values to anarchism that doesn’t line up with what I’m arguing in order to dismiss my argument.

To be fully clear, I’m going to elaborate on what I’m saying. I’m giving a simple cause and effect statement here, not some moral justification. When there is a liberatory movement that threatens the power structure that enforces hierarchy that oppresses people, those in power will use their position to make the movement, threatening tactics/techniques of, or other things done by the people of the movement illegal, necessitating breaking the law to continue. Working within the shifting bounds of law is insufficient.

Yes, but since most people for whatever reason believe that you can fight the state only by the rules the state makes, you won’t be able to do anything about it.

I agree. As an anarchist, I do not think following whatever rules the state makes will ever be sufficient for achieving any liberatory goals.

They are doing this pretty intentionally. Tomorrow is always different from today. People have been complacent, while some other people perceptive of the future in a bad way have made plans for taking unprecedented power over societies.

This is why I advocate for decentralizing power (and the dissolution of all hierarchies and hierarchic power structures). The last thing I want is a despot using the current mechanisms of power and centralize everything, and have such an absurd amount of power.

You are saying this [cut quote about my advocacy of decentralization] as part of a discussion, but they are not discussing this with us. Public opinion won’t stop them. Only force will.

I agree. Every single movement that has gone against a component of the government required either violence, or backed, credible threats of it. The government will never reduce its power to the benefit of the people, even if that policy is popular.

You are absolutely correct, I’m just worried about one less barrier.

FOIA is great and all, and so are public records laws and disclosure laws.

But the state is gonna state, and when push comes to shove, social media will be another tool to manufacture consent, break up movements, and preserve itself over the interest of the governed.

I’m not concerned about the ability to FOIA shit about Twitter or Facebook’s algorithm, as much as I’d like to know about how it targets the content slop to its users. I’m concerned about how it will consolidate power into fewer hands, and how state sponsored social media will be abused. And I don’t think FOIA would ever reveal that if it happened.

Fuck nationalization of social media. Honestly, this is one of the worst ideas I’ve heard.

The idea that giving the government a monopoly on the biggest data hoarders is somehow better than having the capitalists own it is mind-boggling.

The government doesn’t need a warrant to search through its own data.

The last thing we need is to give the state more power over our lives, more insight into our lives, and more control over the narratives we learn.

Every time humans have centralized more power into fewer and fewer hands, nothing good comes from it. We need more decentralized forms of media, not more centralized forms.

Absolutely.

I don’t have a CS degree, I have a Cybersecurity and Forensics one. But, I love programming, and between the overlap of the two degrees and and my advanced designation I ended up taking about 3/4ths of the classes needed to get a CS degree.

Diversifying helped so much with me becoming a well rounded developer. My assembly programming class, while optional for CS, was mandatory for me, made me a significantly better dev. That assembly knowledge got me to become a skilled debugger, which made my C++ classes 10x easier, and it helped me understand memory at a lower level, making the memory problems easier to diagnose and fix.

I convinced a CS friend to take one of my cyber classes, Reverse Engineering, and he found te components of the class where we analyzed a vulnerable program to find and exploit the vuln, or the bit where we tried and determined the bug based on malware that exploited it is insightful to learning to program securely.

Learning about the infrastructure used in enterprise during a Windows admin or Linux admin class will make it easier to write code for those systems.

From the cybersecurity perspective, many of my CS classes carry me hard. Knowing how programs are written, how APIs are developed, and how to design complex software lets me make more educated recommendations based on what little information I’m given by the limited logs I am given to investigate. Writing code that interfaces with linux primitives makes it easier to conceptualize what’s going on when I am debugging a broken linux system.

I have tons of experience with enterprise linux, so I tend to use Rocky linux. It’s similar to my Fedora daily driver, which is nice, and very close to the RHEL and Centos systems I used to own.

You are slightly mistaken with your assumption that debian is insecure because of the old packages. Old packages are fine, and not inherently insecure because of its age. I only become concerned about the security implications of a package if it is dual use/LOLBin, known to be vulnerable, or has been out of support for some time. The older packages Debian uses, at least things related to infrastructure and hosting, are the patched LTS release of a project.

My big concerns for picking a distro for hosting services would be reliability, level of support, and familiarity.

A more reliable distro is less likely to crash or break itself. Enterprise linux and Debian come to mind with this regard.

A distro that is well supported will mean quick access to security patches, updates, and more stable updates. It will have good, accurate documentation, and hopefully some good guides. Enterprise linux, Debian and Ubuntu have excellent support. Enterprise linux distros have incredible documentation, and often are similar enough that documentation for a different branch will work fine. Heck, I usually use rhel docs when troubleshooting my fedora install since it is close enough to get me to a point where the application docs will guide me through.

Familiarity is self explanatory. But it is important because you are more likely to accidentally compromise security in an unfamiliar environment, and it’s the driving force behind me sticking with enterprise linux over Nixos or a hardened OpenBSD.

As a fair word of warning, enterprise linux will be pretty different compared to any desktop distro, even fedora. It takes quite a bit of learning, to get comfortable (especially with SELinux), but once you do, things will go smoothly. you can also use a pirated rhel certification guide to learn enterprise linux

If anything, you can simply mess around in a local VM and try installing the tools and services needed before taking it to the cloud.

This is why I did a “walkthrough test” when I had to write documentation on this sort of thing. I’m a terrible technical writer, so this shit is necessary for me.

I grabbed my friend who knows enough about computers to attempt this, but not enough about infrastructure to automatically know what I meant when I was too vague.

Took two revisions, but the final document was way easier to follow at the end

Well, microsoft chooses bing for you sometimes

Maia Arson Crimew, one of my favorite hackers, is in a webring https://maia.crimew.gay

As a fan of early Ulver, I love finding their later shit floating around online. I’d rarely see it otherwise.

I run two APs, and a Unifi server running on a thin client linux server.

I have the U7, and the U6 extender that goes in a wall outlet

I have a few of their small poe powered ethernet switches, they’re great since I have a poe switch as a backbone I can put it near a group of devices in a room, like consoles, raspberry PIs, etc, and just not have to worry about much setup or powering yet another tiny device.

Highly recommend unifi devices

If whataboutism is reframing the question in a different light that includes what we were talking about and not simply deflecting with a what-about, then I guess I did a textbook whataboutism. I guess I did the classic whataboutism bit where I said tiktok wasn’t censoring, even though I swear I said they were, and instead I said what why do we give social media the power to censor shit like that I was saying tiktok wasn’t censoring and whatabout other social media. 🙄

Whataboutism is when you don’t defend your point or argue against the original point and just change topic. Ex: “Oh you are saying that tiktok is censoring anti-ccp thought? What about facebook and twitter doing shit like banning XYZ political commentators???”

What I said is a bit more complicated than that, so I’ll boil down my points into something a bit more simple manner

• Yeah, tiktok is censoring content
• I don’t like the article’s framing that places instagram as the safe, non-censoring control
• I think media is framing this in such a way that the main reason that tiktok is a problem is because it has a lot of dissent on it and it is foreign-owned, and therefore their flavor of censorship is worse
• instead of forcing tiktok to be sold to an american company, why don’t we address the root cause of the problem, which is the amount of control social media companies have.

Look man, you can’t claim someone is doing a fallacious argument tactic when they aren’t doing it. If someone argued something, fucking respond to it or don’t, it genuinely doesn’t matter. But if you are gonna just be a cunty smuglord instead, you’re a dick and I wish you the worst.

Now, i’m gonna disregard your shit-slinging and go back to taking your comments in good faith. I have a serious question for you. You seem to have a problem with my points, but what about it do you disagree with? I’m literally agreeing with you in a few places and just calling the framing flawed. If you’re gonna respond to that, don’t take me out of context.

If I could do an analysis like this, I would. But I don’t have the technical know-how to do so. Being like “Why don’t you do [complex activity] rather than comment on an existing study” is a shitty mindset that attempts to shut down conversation and doesn’t build upon it in any meaningful way.

Further, I think you completely missed the point of what I said. You presented an article that showed tiktok is biased towards CCP positions, and that isn’t really surprising. I said that I don’t think Instagram is any more trustworthy simply because it is American owned, and I think the framing of that view is flawed. I don’t think it invalidates the data, I just think it places a huge amount of trust in a social media company that has been in constant controversy for its entire existence. The point is why is the problem the fact that a social media company is using their power to promote CCP viewpoints, rather than the fact that social media companies have such power with such little oversight.

You seem to be claiming there’s a fire without even seeing any smoke while simultaneously ignoring the flames in front of your face.

I think you can only say that when you are intentionally misinterpreting what I said to the point I think you are trying to stuff me in some little box I don’t belong in. I acknowledge that TikTok is a problem. If the problem is algorithmic bias with social media, why are we stopping with the foreign company that has opposing interests? Why aren’t we angry that a single company can hold so much power and have such little accountability?

the only issue with Meta is how they refused to take down offensive stuff from high-profile conservatives due to political backlash

I wish I lived in a world that this was the only issue meta had.

• Cambridge Analytica
• Internal research shows Instagram knew it harms teens
• The entire concept of facebook echo chambers and radicalization
• That one time Facebook promoted housing discrimination
• Massive tax avoidance and lobbying

I bet I’m missing a ton, but these things quickly came to mind.

I feel that.

Three years ago I moved to fedora and RHEL based distros like Rocky for my devices and servers because I’ve gotten suck of Canonical’s shit. Don’t regret it.

I skimmed the article and I see your concern, but my skepticism remains because of the inherent assumption that instagram is trustworthy and not already tinkering with their own algorithms. Just because the company is American owned doesn’t make it any more or less trustworthy in my opinion. I think the framing is flawed, but that doesn’t discount the concerns with things that are pro-taiwan having such a small presence

I do think a big reason why tiktok is now being held to the flame is the fact there is so much dissent on it. Younger Americans are becoming increasingly anti-israel and more critical of the US’s stance on foreign policy.

Instead of reacting hastily and banning tiktok I think a better action would be placing the same criticisms on domestic companies. Instead, I think we should make companies much more transparent in how they use their algorithms and filter content. Instead of getting upset that one company is censoring, and making them sell to a US company, we should instead prevent censorship more broadly.

edit: made point a bit more clear

That’s some serious capitalist realism you’ve got there, it would be a shame if you were incorrect.

Real big shame…

It would also be a shame if people are trying to put said other systems in action right now

Real

big

shame