they don't just whimsically decide on a daily basis whether or not to comply with court orders. something changed legally that caused them to take action.

… /results. I'm....not quite understanding you reply. I think you're trying to add on "results" to my statement of "cost/effort", but I covered "results" with my first statement of "features or functionality". So if I understand your post properly, I think your addition is simply duplicative of what I already included. Have I misunderstood what you're trying to communicate?

Great interview! The whole proof-of-work approach is fascinating, and reminds me of a very old email concept he mentions in passing, where an email server would only accept a msg if the sender agreed to pay like a dollar. Then the user would accept the msg, which would refund the dollar. So this would end up costing legitimate senders nothing but would require spammers to front way too much money to make email spamming affordable. In his version the sender must do a processor-intensive computation, which is fine at the volume legitimate senders use but prohibitive for spammers.

So they're doing good work at least.

If it's on ISP level (auth) - doubt.

(common people, this is the fediverse) [image: 922f7388-85b1-463d-9cdd-286adbb6a27b.jpeg]

Because artists are still there.