Notices by Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz), page 162

@bob see the previous post :-)
https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/@strypey/101153609105897197

@djsumdog this is why my views here are still fluid, and I'm really keen to discuss it further. There's a really tricky balance to be struck here, between a number of important democratic rights, and these days I tend towards a consequentialist approach, that asks "what's the likely outcome for people"? I've come to worrh that the idealist approach, where we try to make a universal decision on the Right Thing (TM) for all times and places, is a path to authoritarianism paved with good intentions

@djsumdog but that was one tiny server run by some activists. What if the entire web hosting industry decided not to host, say, anti-abortion speech? I'm pro-choice, but I believe that people who are anti-abortion have the same right to express their views on the subject as I do. In fact, I think it's *healthier* when they do so, because people tend towards militance (eg killing abortion doctors) precisely when they feel their ability to speak and be heard is being actively repressed.

@djsumdog I used to be involved a collective running an Indymedia site. At one point we had to introduce the ability to delete content from our site, because fascists had uploaded recruitment videos to our server via our #OpenPublishing server, and were using our resources to promote a cause we utterly opposed. I didn't believe we had any right to stop them publishing their views at all, but I also believe we had no obligation to help them do so.

@djsumdog for me, the issue of hosting is more complicated, and CDNs even more complicated. I think people have a right to not let their own communication resources be used to promote things they consider not only factually incorrect, but ethically wrong. I think it goes both ways. Hosting companies owned by liberals shouldn't have to host fascist sites, and hosting companies owned by conservatives shouldn't have to host, say, abortion rights sites.

@djsumdog oh we're totally on the same page about domain names. I would argue that refusing a group the ability to register any domain name violates the UN Declaration on Human Rights, specifically the sections about free expression, and political and cultural rights. I would same the same about denying some an internet connection. But ...

@djsumdog that's what I was looking for, thanks :)

@mlg Holmgren is IMHO one of humanity's greatest heroes, and such a laid back, humble guy in person. His #permaculture book Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability is one of the classics of the field. The 3 ethics and 12 principles, and the permaculture flower expressing their interactions, is from his pioneering work:
https://permacultureprinciples.com/
@plausocks @freakazoid @xj9

@djsumdog yes, that's currently how WebTorrent works, a mash-up for #BitTorrent and #WebRTC protocols. There has been some discussion of implementing a fallback using #WebSockets, particularly in the context of making it easier for desktop torrent clients to support WebTorrent swarms.

@djsumdog CDNs are an interesting edge case. Arguably they are not a platform, but a signal booster, and that a #CDN deciding not to boost this or that signal (eg white supremacist sites) is like a #fediverse instance deciding not to federate with this or that instance (eg white supremacist instances). But I get that the relationships between the #BigTech platforms and CDNs muddy the waters. My view on this is still forming, and I'd be happy to see a counter-argument.

@jeremiah Levine's claim (I can quote it if you like) is that it's a case of bad corporations vs. good government, and EFF is on the wrong side. The example I gave debunks this. My hot take is the same as yours, that it's bad government + bad corporations vs. Team Human. The EFF is quite clearly on Team Human, criticizing and campaigning against both bad government + bad corporations with equal passion. Which is why I say Levine gets this dead wrong, and the Baffler does damage by boosting him.

Does anyone know if #CreativeCommons licenses contain an "or later" clause? For example, if I have a website that contains works I didn't create, licensed under version 3.0 CC license(s), can I upgrade them to version 4.0 of the same license? Or do I need the creators permission to do that? Not looking for free legal advice, just a lay opinion from someone who's dealt with similar issues before.

The is a great piece by Rich Bartlett of #Enspiral, #Loomio, and #TheHub, talking about the advantages of federations of small groups, over networks of loosely connected individuals:
http://organizationunbound.org/expressive-change/build-a-network-of-small-groups-not-a-mass-movement-of-individuals/

It's reasons like these I encourage community-hosting more than self-hosting. Note: I'm not against self-hosting, for those who have the skills and motivation to set up and maintain it, it's just not my ideal that everyone self-hosts.

@richdecibels me too! I know of a savings pool in Aotearoa that currently depends on one person, who keeps tabs of all the money going in and out on spreadsheets, and sends those spreadsheets out once a month to the pool members. This is not a resilient system, and if there isn't #FreeCode software for automating this, there desperately needs to be.

Governments censorship has never been about preventing things from being said at all, that's impossible. It's really about a) preventing them from being heard, and b) preventing them from being considered legitimate topics of respectable discussion. You can say anything you want in China ... so long as you only say it in private, among people you trust. Does that mean the Chinese government doesn't do censorship?

"It's not censorship. Only the government can do that."

I see this claim a lot, and I don't think it's true anymore, at least not without broadening the definition of the word "government". When quite a few of the 50 largest economies in the world are corporations, and many of them govern #BigTech platforms like FB and YT that have more users than many countries have citizens. it's nonsense to say they are not capable of effective censorship.

@cod3monk3y do you know if #IPFS is compatible with #WebTorrent? If so, that could be a solution.

@jeremiah one other thing, Levine claims that the real threat to user privacy isn't governments, but corporations. In my country, the #GCSB, which is our equivalent of the #NSA and a member of the #5Eyes, had law passed where it can directly regulate what hardware telecoms corporations use in their networks, with no public oversight:
https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/377066/huawei-vs-five-eyes-nz-diplomatic-ties-at-centre-of-dilemma

So Levine is dead wrong, and having those claims published in the #Baffer can only cause damage.

A #HackerNews thread on #PeerTube raises the issue of videos URLs changing if the original instance goes down but the video is still available on another one. It would be great if videos in the PT network could be assigned some kind of persistent address (the video equivalent of a #DOI URL), so that as long as a video is on at least one instance, that address will point to it:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17386609