What I’ve learned over the last few years:

• Only academics, commentators and researchers truly care about collective security, where the whole world gains because certain technology and is commonly agreed to be off-the-table
• Everyone else (that is, corporations including government and private enterprise) only cares about zero-sum security - your insecurity is my security gain - but they pretend in their messaging to care about collective security. It explains why nation states continue to demand purpose-built backdoors into hardware and encryption implementations, and why employers are content to treat your mobile phone like their own property, demanding apps, RATs, etc. be installed
• Most cybersecurity is thinly-veiled compliance, and amounts to certified bureaucrats implementing products from that small bunch of vendors with the means to influence policymaking
• The public messaging around security always uses the noun in the abstract, which to me is telling. Security for whom? Security against what? Security for what? See also social media and the term “safety”.

20 was the lead engineer ‘mishearing’ Zuck after he said 2.

Say it with me, peeps. Tenant on your own land!

Sounds like the protocol equivalent of regulatory capture.

Make it easy to buy stuff and people will.

In case you haven’t worked it out by now, the following advice may be of help:

They’re not gonna do that

Capitalizing black mid-setence. It’s an absolutely ridiculous convention, and something only the American Left could take seriously.

Sincerely, Everyone else

sharing - this one is key. I use a shared shopping list and we both need to add and edit.

https://etherpad.org/

Get jotting with your friends in seconds: https://pad.disroot.org/

A Boeing suicide…

A crass nickname for the CIA Prize for Journalism if I ever saw one.

Or put another way, it’s enabling advertisers to better camouflage themselves as humans. (Because we just cannot have people communicating directly to each other on the web…)

No, Mr Mangione! A Fortune 500 executive is a living, enterprising creature!

I don’t care…heheheh <ebike swerves onto sidewalk>

Competitor lobbying doesn’t even enter into it, I’d guess.

The US State Department won’t tolerate Americans being exposed to media that doesn’t adhere to its view of the world. What large groups of Americans think - and vitally, the bounds of what they are permitted to think - is a national security ‘issue’ in the eyes of the state. No such problem exists with Facebook, cable news, the establishment newspapers, etc. As Chomsky teaches, propaganda is equally about what isn’t in the news.

I got the feeling Arkane was always shit at org politics, to be honest. Creative energy without corporate strategy. Big shame.

Latuff created his dopey comic because he knows his left-wing audiences want confirmation of their political biases. There’s nothing wrong with that. We all seek it on occasion. But what crimes the US is and is not guilty of has virtually no bearing on the fact that 19 muslim men literally took up box cutters against passenger airliners as a profession of their faith. The hijackers didn’t care about bin Laden’s politics, they saw an opportunity to kill infidels and they took it. They certainly didn’t care about Iran Contra or Mosadegh or fucking Halliburton profiteering, and they certainly didn’t become fundamentalists because of those things.

The wikipedia links are stunningly impertinent. The charts contexually lame. Muslim fundamentalism is the cause of the 9/11 attacks; no ackchually-tier insistence on proximate versus ultimate cause is necessary.

9/11 has nothing to do with the US overthrow of foreign governments. The US didn’t make bin Laden into what he became, bin Laden did. The guy was an egomaniac bedazzled by his own bullshit. The notion that the attacks were reeeaaally about oil access or regime change or economic disparity as opposed to bloodyminded religious zealotry is a lie.

Removed by mod

Take this social media law, plus the software backdoor nonsense from a few years ago, and I can’t help but see a clear message emerging from legislators to Australian developers who’d seek to build great digital spaces and tools: Do not domicile anything in this country. Do not host anything on servers in this country. Expect hostility from authorities toward the anonymity, security, and privacy of the people using your code.

I hope you’re wrong, and they’re going to arbitarily apply the law to King Doge and Zuck, with everyone else getting ignored.

What I find intriguing is the potential for fediverse/decentralized service uptake amongst Australians, should the corporate providers decide it’s too much bother implementing an identity solution for 26m people and simply rangebans them.

In an alternate universe, parents are devoting 10 per cent of their doomscrolling time to studying their router manuals and determining access windows for social media on their LAN. But why obtain a gram of education to address a serious parenting issue when a ton of democracy-threatening legislation driven by politics will achieve a quarter of the same thing?

You’ll find that these professions have a vested interest in maintaining network effects, and as such will view Mast/Blue as threats to their networking infrastructure. They don’t want to dilute the importance of the platform their patronage systems rely on (let alone destroy it) - in fact its centrality is why they leverage it to advance their careers. Artists I can see understanding platform agnosticism to some extent, but for the other two groups, it’s simply not in their DNA. The gatekeeping is a feature for them.

‘The medium is the message’ as a Canadian theorist once said.

The domain is leased to SEO lizards https://larslofgren.com/forbes-marketplace/

Lots of banned artist and album names that will return zero results, unless you do something like search for a song or two that’s on the album you want and finding the data that way.

The only objectionable hurdles are the insurmountable ones