Who wants to announce a partnership with me to promote irresponsible AI?

The supreme court was non partisan. Do you expect the truth arbitration department to go any better?

The 50% of people who believe false things are going to vote for truth arbiters that we don’t like. Surely it will be amazing when the correct party is in control, but inevitably the wrong party will be in control sometimes too.

The issue is that bad truth arbitration is “sticky”. Once a bad actor is in control, they have the power to silence their own opposition.

In order for this to work, we must either make sure a bad actor never ends up at the wheel - which will eventually fail, or neuter the truth arbitration process to the point of inefficacy.

The risks here are probable and tangible. We may have the techniques to do it eventually, but I don’t think we have them right now.

This is an excellent way of looking at it, that is very different from my initial understanding.

This changes the concern profile entirely, from “who decides what is false” (big concern) to “how do we define advocating, how do we define violence, etc” - which are valid concerns, but apply to just about every law.

Off topic, the cyber security world has been wrestling with “unauthorized access” - is there implicit authorization when a device is attached to the internet? Nobody authorized me to use google - are web requests access? Is bypassing authentication access? It’s a mess.

So… what? Are you arguing for an expansion of “punitive models”?

Iraq has exceptional consistency in thought leadership. There are no drug addicts in Singapore.

Moxie marlinspike has an excellent blog post on “perfect enforcement” - if the law were applied perfectly, we would not have the lgbtq marriage rights we have today. If America had perfect consistency of thought, we would all be protestant catholic.

Consistency is not a world I strive for, and therefore, to return to the start of this thread, I do not believe the us gov should apply censorship to our communications, and I do believe that doing so would be a slippery slope, precisely and purely because censorship may prevent its own regulation.

No single body can wield this power, and therefore multiple should.

/pol/ self-censors through slides and sages, and even maintains at least some level of toxicity just to dissuade outsiders from browsing or posting - you could call it preventative censorship.

Fortunately, we don’t have to go there. We have the choice to coexist on Beehaw instead.

Even on reddit, different subs could have different moderation policies, and so if you didn’t like ex. Cyberpunk, you could go to lowsodium_cyberpunk.

Freedom to choose communities allows multiple diverse communities to form, and I think that’s the key - that there are many communities.

When the scope of truth arbitration moves from lemmy instances to the us gov, the only alternative choice for any who disagree would be to go to another country.

The beauty of the internet is that there are no countries. Any website could be anywhere - there are hundreds of thousands of choices, from twitter hashtags to irc rooms.

I do not want one hegemony of information. I do not want 5, or one for each nato member. I want as many as possible, so I may find one (or more!) that I like.

Who is the arbiter of truth? What prevents the power to censor from being abused?

The power to censor inherently includes the ability to silence its own opposition. Centralizing this power is therefore dangerous, as it is neigh impossible to regulate.

Currently, we can choose our forums - beehaw does a good job, /pol/ silences all but one worldview, and therefore I am here and not there. What happens when that choice is taken away, and one “truth” is applied universally, with no course for opposition?

Perhaps you believe you hold the correct opinions, and will not be affected. Only those who disagree with you will be silenced. Or perhaps you change your opinions to whatever you are told is correct, and therefore you do hold the correct opinions, though only by definition.

Consider that 50% of the country disagrees with you politically. If you follow a third party, it’s 98%. A forced shared truth is only “good” if it goes your way - but the odds of that are so incredibly small, and it gets much smaller when you consider infighting within the parties.

I’m here to throw Inconsolata into the mix, though I use Fira more frequently now from a compatibility perspective.

Go a level deeper, beyond this news about news, and read the moat memo.

The third faction is the open source community.

The memo has an entire timeline section, dedicated to showing the speed at which the open source community absorbed and iterated on the leaked facebook model, LaMMa.

The memo puts a lot of emphasis on how google and co are building new models from scratch, over months, with millions of dollars - and yet open source is building patches, in days, with only a few hundred dollars - and the patches stack, and are easily shareable.

The open source models, through these patches, are getting better faster than google can re-architect and re-train new models from scratch.

The main point of the memo is that google needs to change their strategy, if they want to stay “ahead” (some would argue they’re already behind) of the competition.

Wireguard creates a new network interface that accepts, encrypts, wraps, and ships packets out your typical network interface.

If you were to create a kernel network namespace and move the wireguard interface into that new namespace, the connection to your existing nic is not broken.

You can then use some custom systemd units to start your *rr software of choice in said namespace, rendering you immune to dns leaks, and any other such vpn failures.

If you throw bridge interfaces into the mix, you can create gateways to tor / i2p / ipfs / Yggdrasil / etc as desired. You’ll need a bridge anyway to get your requester software interface exposed to your reverse proxy.

Wireguard also allows multiple peers, so you could multi-nic a portable personal device, and access all your admin interfaces while traveling, with the same vpn-failure-free peace of mind.

Let’s go academic with it, and skip straight past “impossible to answer” directly to heuristic / attribute analysis.

What are the attributes / behaviors / tells of a fake account?

Love me some DHT! The dht has saved some of my trackerless quests on many occasions.

i2p is not a torrent client - but have no fear, you’re not missing much. i2p torrenting is slowwww (think gigs per day) and generally doesn’t have much.

I recall eleventy being pretty good.

I had one issue with it, re how it generated links, that didn’t match how I needed it to in order to migrate my site, which was a dealbreaker for me. But other than that, it was solid.

I despise jekyll, purely from the standpoint of the state of their documentation.

There was another, that was extremely lightweight and configurable, at the cost of requiring much configuration - I think it was called “metal” - if I can find it I’ll report back

Edit: Hexo and Metalsmith. Hexo scratches my javascript itch; metalsmith is extremely versatile - it’s more of an erector set than a finished thing.

I like G10.

Decentralized identity is a field of active research. It’s tough, but very interesting. I’m particularly a fan of what nostr is doing, where accounts are completely separate from relays, and can post anywhere.