sobchak

There's no good evidence of widespread voting shenanigans (yet; I'm worried about future elections). Trump was popular in rural US, and that pretty much explains everything. I agree with everything else you said though. There's a ton of evidence of foreign meddling, and all the dark money in politics is basically legalized election influence for the wealthy.

There are so many issues to attack him on that this one looks minor. I think I heard the DNC is pretty much bankrupt too.

Yeah, in the US, the protestors are mostly older people. I think maybe they're too anxious and don't want to jeopardize their future careers? Maybe they saw the concerted effort to ruin pro-Palestine protestor's lives? Most companies do background checks (I've had to get a background check to work at Burger King), and even a single arrest on your record is enough to have you automatically filtered out. Maybe they saw that the BLM protests didn't really cause the government to change much. Idk. It is weird though.

I've read that some dogs are more tolerant, and some die from a single grape.

Most politicians at that level (maybe all levels) appear to be bought and paid for, are not genuine, and just say whatever the polls and their campaign managers tell them. She seems to be more genuine, competent, charismatic, and a threat to the status quo.

Hmm, yeah, the being exposed thing is what the Web of Trust system is supposed to prevent. I guess I feel that it's more important to protect everyone's anonymity than to possibly make it easier to catch people distributing and consuming CSAM. There are other ways to catch and prosecute the people who produce, distribute, and consume CSAM. It doesn't happen in a vacuum, and is not a purely digital crime.

Presumably, there are other ways to catch them than to allow total surveillance of society. I mean, I don't think the post office should inspect every person's mail without a warrant either; and I'm sure there's plenty of CSAM transmitted through it.

Probably no way to do something like that and be imperceptible to humans. Could probably find ways to mangle variable names adversarially, but that would also make it harder for humans. The best thing would probably be trying to do reliable bot detection, then serve the bots adversarially constructed text that *looks" plausible, but is nonsense/broken. I've heard about "tar pits" and "markov tarpits;" I don't know if they try to make the content look legitimate and/or adverserially construct the content to try to maximize damage during training.

I haven't used the new Freenet, but have messed around with Hyphanet. You simply just upload files to the network, announce that they are uploaded (by making a Freesite, making a post on Sone, and/or making a post on their forum application (I forget what it's called). Hyphanet is like a distributed file store that everyone can write to and read from. Kind of like an anonymized predecessor to IPFS. Large files will likely get evicted very fast, unless they are popular. And, it's slow as hell.

Lol, yeah. We also had to do stuff like that for auditing and compliance because the application interacted with the company's accounting system.

I know they removed the anonymity features, but he says they have plans to add something as a layer on top instead of having anonymity baked into the core. He said with anonymity, they'll still have "robust safeguards against illegal usage." IDK what that means.

Hyphanet (the predecessor to this new Freenet; possibly superior in some ways) uses an implementation of the "Web of Trust" idea for stuff like this. It doesn't remove content, but hides it if you and the people you trust, don't trust that pseudonym (you can assign trust levels in the 0-100 range IIRC). There are also freesite indexes that are curated (multiple levels; a "clean" one that only contains stuff that is unlikely to cause legal problems, an intermediate one that allows stuff like piracy, and a unmoderated one I think). I guess you can say that Hyphanet doesn't bake moderation into the system itself, but offloads that to individuals and groups. I like this idea, because different people and groups think different things are acceptable and not.