I think that kind of thing is more cultural than anything. Probably she doesn’t care very much whether it’s actually true or not, and feels she’d be losing face by being anything but confident about it.

Imo it’s more important that people learn that being wrong can be empowering, and how to have conversations where someone is wrong but not being put down for it, than just learning that they can be wrong.

How are being smart and being intelligent not synonyms?

I’m not assuming that, I just don’t see why would it even matter if it’s from another instance.

Is it a mistake? Wouldn’t federated content still count the same way legally, since an instance is also a website?

What does that enable? Could people in states blocked by the main network use it through these?

That they are trying to disarm their political adversaries seems like evidence. Afaik the situation so far is, the people they are detaining can mostly expect to survive. If it progresses beyond that, that’s when vulnerable groups still having guns gets more relevant, because the likelihood of a shootout is going to affect the scalability of mass arrests, or of the viability of extrajudicial killings by groups the government refuses to police.

This is good logic but I think what you are missing is that the factor behind investment demand driving up price is volume of capital rather than number of landlords. One company can buy any number of living spaces if it has a way to profit on them, cancelling out the effects of any number of principled refusals by individuals to buy property in pursuit of that profit.

That said, one thing that is weighted to individuals is lobbying local government to protect their investments, so more people becoming landlords isn’t necessarily good, because your finances being tied to something is a powerful source of bias, for instance towards opposing new housing developments that could increase housing supply and reduce price of your properties, or opposing higher property taxes for non-primary-residences. But if someone supports effective policies towards affordable housing, even knowing it will harm their investments, I think they get credit for that.

Well like I said that’s kind of the sentiment I expect because people like to make this about individual morality, but care to elaborate at all? Do you disagree with any particular part of what I’m saying?

This will probably be an unpopular opinion but I think the reality is that the choice whether to be a landlord has no effect on the supply of housing and so is almost totally irrelevant to this essentially systemic issue. The only kind of stuff that matters here:

• Supply of housing influencing its cost
• Relative wealth of the poorest influencing their ability to pay for housing
• Other factors (the credit system etc) limiting people’s access to housing
• Legal ability to use housing as a speculative investment and store of wealth (ie. low property taxes even if you own multiple properties)

The idea that people would buy property and then provide housing on a charitable basis in defiance of the market isn’t realistic and isn’t a viable solution to the problem. The only solution is to build the right incentives into the system. Someone can support the latter without trying to do the former.

Didn’t they ban Huawei phones in the US

Pull an eyelash or similar, keep it between a specific page and check every time that it’s still there. If someone tampers with the journal it will fall out and they won’t realize it matters.

How can you know the success is zero? Encryption is more widely used and much more resistant to political attack. Open source software is more powerful and accessible. A large portion of people loathe corporate tech platforms at a level they didn’t years ago. Granted a lot of that is just down to how functional or trustworthy the software is, and what guarantees about it can be plausibly provided, and it isn’t all wins. Maybe you can’t exactly get everyone caring about this stuff in the same way or for the same reasons you do. But that doesn’t mean there are no possible avenues to success, or that the tech habits of other groups can be written off as useless here, because it’s probably the most important thing.

Also if wifi mesh is our last hope, oof

Yeah. What I propose is getting more people involved and caring about freedom preserving technologies before it gets to that point. A tiny minority of somewhat more tech literate people are not going to be magically immune to authoritarian checkmate scenarios through technical solutions alone.

Are there now legal means to do longer range communications? I thought the main limitation was you need to be licensed to do anything more than short range home wifi

Thanks. Somehow the network actually seems to be working pretty well for me now, not sure why it wasn’t before.

Unless these companies are hosted in MS, have offices, or sell ads there, there’s nothing legally they can do.

Is that really how it works? Haven’t legal challenges to these sorts of laws already been appealed up to the supreme court and they were upheld?

I’ve tried a few times to check out i2p, it seems to take hours of leaving it running to even get to the point where you can very slowly and inconsistently load even the official pages though.

So far their efforts in various forms of voter suppression have prevented that, and at the same time more people equals more congressional seats.

Except if the topic is wifi meshnets, no amount of tech savvyness will get you around an absence of other nodes nearby. General apathy is actually a huge problem here.

In those cases it seems like the law does prevent state level regulation of those things, because the state is only allowed to regulate commerce happening within its borders, not what its residents do elsewhere (although they can still also regulate the use of fireworks and airguns, but enforcement is more difficult, for instance where I am they sometimes send out notices in the mail warning that it’s against the law for individuals to be setting off fireworks but there’s always a massive decentralized fireworks show every 4th of July anyway).

Somehow with the internet, the location of the server isn’t the thing that matters, it’s whose computer is accessing it and where that person and computer is located, and the liability is on the server not the user. IMO it should not work that way, because then every state with regressive politics has a stranglehold on the whole internet.