It’s an instrument, not a solution. In general I’d advise everyone to think of security thus:

If someone wants to find your ass, they’ll find your ass.

But if you follow all the best practices, they won’t find your ass accidentally or just for fun. They’ll have to work.

Started reading this as “stacking up animation” and thought you are going for inner escapism with your anime collection when there’ll be problems with interwebs, interpipes and intergunshots on the streets.

Yeah, see, you are already dreaming of that other American thing.

Trump is literally America’s spirit animal, he represents everything that America stands for: greed, ignorance, hate, racism, bigotry, misogyny, corruption, and deceit. Trump is not an outlier, he is America’s mirror.

Probably because that demented walking corpse was picked intentionally as an avatar. He represents a group of people in power. Without Trump they’d probably find some other one. But he’s too convenient.

I’ve recently had a thought that direct democracy is possible.

I’ll elaborate:

Sometimes we (humans or even societies) don’t update our ideas for the new information.

Say, when I was in kindergarten, I was once sitting behind a table waiting for my mom to get me. A kindergarten teacher put a box with a puzzle in front of me. When I was leaving, I took it. It was apparently intended for another kid who had a birthday.

(I’m autistic, so I have rather early memories.)

So - I was ashamed of this for many years until I realized this was bog standard entrapment and the only thing that teacher wanted, probably, was to feel how forgiving they are and probably better than my parents.

That realization was when I revised the old idea for additional information I had as an adult.

The elaboration itself:

This can be applied to direct democracy.

It’s considered impractical to have a national vote on every issue, because big countries have more stuff to deal with using laws, and because it’s technically challenging, and because the crowd is unwise.

But! The general populace’s ideas of what is practical and what isn’t for democracies are from the times when living people would switch telephone calls.

We live in a world where you can have a national vote every day and all the facilities have been created many times, with cryptographic signatures, with highly loaded systems like those of Facebook and other social media. We can have direct non-anonymous democracy, it’s not impractical.

And also the so-called Soviet democracy (not the USSR, or rather it existed purely on paper in the USSR, except its first few years and last few years) is often considered impractical, because it can be disrupted by recalling higher council members from the lower ones, putting pressure on the lower layer councils’ electors, but I beg your pardon, in today’s world that wouldn’t be a disruption.

One could make an argument in favor of not relying upon the Internet and computers for such important institutes, but unfortunately the inverted way of using these opportunities is already embraced to effectively kill democracies.

So it’s better to think of some thoroughly resilient global system of discussion and voting over the Internet, other than discard the idea.

Can you stop trying to find a silver lining in the sexual exploitation of teenage girls?

Can you please use words by their meaning?

Also I’ll have to be blunt, but - every human has their own sexuality, with their own level of “drive”, so to say, and their dreams.

And it’s absolutely normal to dream of other people. Including sexually. Including those who don’t like you. Not only men do that, too. There are no thought crimes.

So talking about that being easier or harder you are not making any argument at all.

However. As I said elsewhere, the actions that really harm people should be classified legally and addressed. Like sharing such stuff. But not as making child pornography because it’s not, and not like sexual exploitation because it’s not.

It’s just that your few posts I’ve seen in this thread seem to say that certain kinds of thought should be illegal, and that’s absolute bullshit. And laws shouldn’t be made based on such emotions.

This definitely will not add in any way to the way women and girls are made to feel entirely disgustingly dehumanized by every man or boy in their lives. Groups of men and boys reducing them and their bodies down to vivid sexual fantasies that they can quickly generate photo realistic images of.

Sexual attraction doesn’t necessarily involve dehumanization. Unlike most other kinds of interest in a human being, it doesn’t require interest in their personality, but these are logically not the same.

In general you are using emotional arguments for things that work not through emotion, but through literal interpretation. That’s like using metric calculations for a system that expects imperial. Utterly useless.

If the person in the image is underaged then it should be classified as child pornography.

No, it’s not. It’s literally a photorealistic drawing based on a photo (and a dataset to make the generative model). No children have been abused to produce it. Laws work literally.

If the woman who’s photo is being used hasnt consented to this then it should be classified as sexual exploitation.

No, because the woman is not being literally sexually exploited. Her photo being used without consent is, I think, subject of some laws. There are no new fundamental legal entities involved.

Women and girls have faced degrees of this kind of sexual exploitation by men and boys since the latter half of the 20th century. But this is a severe escalation in that behavior. It should be illegal to do this and it should be prosecuted when and where it is found to occur.

I think I agree. But it’s neither child pornography nor sexual exploitation and can’t be equated to them.

There are already existing laws for such actions, similar to using a photo of the victim and a pornographic photo, paper, scissors, pencils and glue. Or, if you think the situation is radically different, there should be new punishable crimes introduced.

Otherwise it’s like punishing everyone caught driving while drunk for non-premeditated murder. One is not the other.

You can make an installer like the one Freenet has. Maybe even a wrapper with a tray icon in Tcl/Tk or something like that.

I mean, 44net is a rather early thing, a subspace for packet radio part of it.

Unless general-purpose Internet services will be banned.

Have you noticed that laws about providing data on bad-bad criminals yadda-yadda implicitly ban everything not allowing to get that data?

And have you noticed that Russian bans of things that can’t be filtered not only implicitly allow whitelist ban of protocols and services, but are also not very far from what EU and US lawmakers want?

In any situation, if what powerful guys are doing seems to promise good things for you, first consider the possibility that you don’t understand what they are doing.

If you mean anti-migrant violence, that was so normal for Russia in the 00s that nobody batted an eye. It seems to already have become normal enough in the US. He just has to show it’s still happening. No need for any further buildup.

Clamping down of filthy liberals … it depends if doing it very slowly is acceptable for him. But he’s old and demented, I don’t think he’ll be around for most of this process regardless if it’s fast or slow.

gives him no option but indiscriminate violence

That’s where you are wrong, we live today in a world where all processes seemingly requiring indiscriminate violence work just fine with precision violence.

And when it’s indiscriminate, it’s not because they need it for the stated goal, but because they need, say, to ruin half a city for some future riches from contracts from people close to power. And they don’t need the population around to resist or register plunder by occupying troops. Similar with murder of civilians - that’s too sort of plunder, a huge proportion of the population feels something erotic from murders.

It’s a bit like William the Conqueror gave lands to his Norman nobles.

Today they give plunder and future construction contracts to their herd of cronies and corrupt officials and acquaintances.

It’s like in criminal groups they sometimes try, or so I’ve heard, to have everyone involved in a few serious enough crimes, so that they couldn’t just try to leave.

In this case the general population is made dirty by economic integration with some occupied parts and making it normalized, like triangle trade. The military is made dirty by allowing and even ordering plunder and murder for fun. The “elite” is made both dirty and interested by sharing in the spoils (but notice how that’s a post-success activity, so first the general population and the military are made dirty, and then people actually profiting and making the decisions ; a win-win situation). The foreign elites are too made dirty and interested by their share in the power offering of a victory (some kind of it at least).

It’s sort of an unholy hybrid of cartels and feudalism.

You don’t seem to be able to separate your own logic from the context of my conclusions, implicitly assuming either my context is the same, or it’s my fault if it’s not.

In other words, you are unprepared for any intelligent discussion, which your first reply shows well enough.

So much for who should be opening their mouth or touching their keyboard on whichever subject.

Have you considered that your own level of discussion might not be worth holding emotions inside wasting effort?

OK, then I’m not sure if it’s even possible to see a society most of politics in which weren’t “stirrup holders”.

Hitler took over in a country where his browshirts could already kill people they didn’t like on the streets and the state was weak.

Strong popular resistance was driven by Nazis not even trying to take it slow, they loved demonstrative violence.

I think Trump is still more like Putin than like Hitler. He’ll try to avoid significant resistance and make changes gradually. If he needs, he’ll use violence, but very sparingly. Not because of being better, just because that’s more effective.

So then the statement in your statement seems to be racism should have no social consequences?

No, that racism shouldn’t be treated with whip because it is by itself a sentiment that becomes stronger this way.

The “dog eat dog” kind, if someone beats you for expressing it, you feel you are not being aggressive enough.

Maybe they can change over time? Sure give those sincerely seeking the grace they need. But power must be applied to preserve decent social standards.

I see the wisdom in speaking softly most times. It’s a tough pill to swallow but those soft words must be backed up by strength. There are behaviors and attitudes that simply cannot be allowed to prosper.

That is right in theory, but in practice people mostly choose strength over soft words when strength is acceptable.

Someone’s personal islands after going through a chain of offshores. I don’t think they are going to really build an SS. They already have everything to build it much cheaper.

He wasn’t. He was very busy with creating appearances and atomizing the society, but Putin wasn’t very popular after his first term. He managed to ride the skyrocketing oil prices as if it was his own economic restoration, but that wasn’t the fascism-building kind of popularity, that was “maybe it’s for the better that we don’t drain this swamp yet, we are starting to live better” kind of popularity.

I dunno, “secret” doesn’t seem to be exactly the word.

If your meaning is that Cato institute somehow laid the path for Trump to come to power, then I’d say that from the outside it looks like the liberal-centrist Democratic Party made much more of that, and also from the outside it looks like the consequences of all actions seem to be, in this case, just how they’d evaluate those, and also it wouldn’t seem clear why would you even claim it.

See, being against people\things you consider “good” is not supporting people\things you consider “bad” any more than you yourself are doing that.