One method could be to have a replay system, public state snapshots, and publicly logged inputs. Servers could randomly audit federated peers by replaying small segments of their logs, and defederate/broadcast that there is a problem if the end state doesn't match. This would require them to be running the same code and not use arbitrary mods, but different settings would still be possible.
I'm semi-ok with this tradeoff, as long as there are working ways I can get around the paywalls. Once there aren't, it's worse as I'm never going to go actually pay monthly for a hundred online papers I mostly don't value the content of anyway. The main value articles have is as a shared context for discussion and common source of information, and with actually effective paywalls they would be entirely useless for that.
The way I think of it is, I don't live in China, so regardless of my objections to their values or human rights abuses, why would CCP or an affiliated company care about me or ruin my life on the basis of or by abusing my data? A big part of why I care about privacy is I don't want to be filtering my every thought through consideration of whether the powers that be would approve, and US companies are way more relevant to that.
We come from a time where there was no place for everyone to share their views, people were okay. They had their bubbles (they were called pubs) and read their newspaper.
I'm not sure how else to interpret that, seemed pretty straightforward, that your argument hinges on the idea that the internet allowing people to share their views made things worse, but feel free to clarify
It just seems like you're saying that things were better back then, because people had less ability to express themselves, but regardless of the logic about what affects what, they objectively weren't better, and because of that your point doesn't make sense to me.
We come from a time where there was no place for everyone to share their views, people were okay
Counterpoint - mainstream discourse and consensus was way more bigoted in the 90s, and the rise of the internet probably had something to do with that changing.
From talking to someone involved in local government software, it seemed to me like there is a push in the opposite direction from that; they want and are moving towards offloading as much as possible to third party software vendors.
Why not? If the goals of something like "universal healthcare for pets" are worthwhile and justifiably extended to all life, then why wouldn't those goals justify disruptive influence? Why would there be any line at which they aren't worth it? And if there is some competing moral imperative that justifies the existence of a line, then why wouldn't it be further in the other direction?
I feel like people have a skewed perspective on this stuff due to living in controlled environments where they are largely isolated from the sheer scale, brutality, and hopelessness of it all. The animals they see on a daily basis are pets, their lives depend on them, and to an extent they are empowered to help those particular individual animals, the only ones they are really very aware of, with some of their problems (while seeing never and not at all the animals used for meat to feed them). But that's artificial. If you live closer to nature, maybe you'll see a little more; the carcass of a rabbit, covered in ticks. Territorial robins, killing the chicks you've been watching another robin raise. You'd go insane letting yourself feel full empathy for all of them, just the ones you can see, but then there's billions more you can't, none of them cared for, all living in some relative state of desperation. And in reality you can't do anything for them, you can try, but it's basically spitting into the ocean. Save one injured animal (mostly an impossible task, but maybe you could succeed sometimes with effort), that will distort the ecosystem very slightly, but the system will self adjust to undo your influence over time, at least in terms of the quantity of death and suffering, if not which species are more prevalent.
Ultimately I think there is a choice to make. Accept this state of affairs and your place in it, or aspire to overthrow and remake it, but you can't really have both.
chicken @ chicken @lemmy.dbzer0.com Posts 0Comments 1,230Joined 2 yr. ago
One method could be to have a replay system, public state snapshots, and publicly logged inputs. Servers could randomly audit federated peers by replaying small segments of their logs, and defederate/broadcast that there is a problem if the end state doesn't match. This would require them to be running the same code and not use arbitrary mods, but different settings would still be possible.