Alexandre Oliva (moved to @lxo@gnusocial.jp) (lxo@gnusocial.net)'s status on Sunday, 09-Jun-2024 23:53:37 EDT
Alexandre Oliva (moved to @lxo@gnusocial.jp)if you will delegate to an instance the decision on what to show you on your browser when you connect to it, you'd have to pick an instance that does that for you. mastodon mainline could make that configurable. someone could patch mastodon in their instance to behave as you wish. you could run your own instance. you could run something other than mastodon that behaved as you wish. these are all in line with the notion of decentralization and browser-based UX. I sense there's some other unstated requirement.
Alexandre Oliva (moved to @lxo@gnusocial.jp) (lxo@gnusocial.net)'s status on Sunday, 09-Jun-2024 22:22:10 EDT
Alexandre Oliva (moved to @lxo@gnusocial.jp)free software is about freedom, not about licensing. copyright is, by default, an obstacle to the essential freedoms, so we have to come up with licenses that relax the prohibitions so that others can have the freedoms they deserve. if copyright were to go away, that would remove one of the main obstacles for users and developers to have freedom. it would also remove our main defense, namely copyleft. copyleft licensing is not a requirement of free software, it's a strategic choice based on available legal tools. if we were to lose that defense, publishing free software and hoping it remains free for all users would be a vain hope, because downstream copies, modified or not, could be separated from the essential freedoms. but the published version, accompanied by source code, would be freedom-respecting, thus free software, regardless, just like source code in the public domain today.
Alexandre Oliva (moved to @lxo@gnusocial.jp) (lxo@gnusocial.net)'s status on Sunday, 09-Jun-2024 07:12:56 EDT
Alexandre Oliva (moved to @lxo@gnusocial.jp)I suspect there's a significant element of blame shifting in it. like "oh, you got scammed while using public wifi, then it's your fault!", just like attributing the victim's bad luck to their being a sinner, or assigning the blame for a car accident to the person who had left their driver's license at home, rather than to the person who made a dangerous move. van halen's brown m&m's come to mind: if you can't even follow such trivial security&safety advice, we shouldn't trust you to more serious matters. and then, there's probably misinterpreted scientific data suggesting that most people getting scammed were on public wifi. not that public wifi impacted their security, but just because a lot of people use public wifi. now, sure, relying on a rando-provided DNS server for security-critical name resolution is probably poor security practice indeed, and various hotspots actively mess with dns, but with https and domain certificates, that's largely irrelevant now