Skip to content

For All That Is Good About Humankind, Ban Smartphones

Technology
86 51 0
  • Is Google about to destroy the web?

    Technology technology
    61
    1
    188 Stimmen
    61 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    T
    All it would take would be a platform that handles the payment and supplies a tracking pixel. Websites could join and become part of it. At the moment, every single publisher has their own payment solution. If I want to read one local article from Houston today and one from Tokyo tomorrow, I won't join two payment plans. I want them to be paid automatically, like when I play a song on Spotify or watch a video on YouTube. Just a decent amount of money instead of paying mostly middlemen.
  • 456 Stimmen
    48 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    L
    That's good to know, thanks.
  • Building a slow web

    Technology technology
    37
    1
    174 Stimmen
    37 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    I
    Realistically, you don't need security, NAT alone is enough since the packets have nowhere to go without port forwarding. But IF you really want to build front end security here is my plan. ISP bridge -> WAN port of openwrt capable router with DSA supported switch (that is almost all of them) Set all ports of the switch to VLAN mirroring mode bridge WAN and LAN sides Fail2Ban IP block list in the bridge LAN PORT 1 toward -> OpenWRT running inside Proxmox LXC (NAT lives here) -> top of rack switch LAN PORT 2 toward -> Snort IDS LAN PORT 3 toward -> combined honeypot and traffic analyzer Port 2&3 detect malicious internet hosts and add them to the block list (and then multiple other openwrt LXCs running many many VPN ports as alternative gateways, I switch LAN host's internet address by changing their default gateway) I run no internal VLAN, all one LAN because convenience is more important than security in my case.
  • 74 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    C
    Time to start chopping down flock cameras.
  • 103 Stimmen
    102 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    A
    Lost In Stupid Parenthesis.
  • 463 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    L
    Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.
  • Palantir’s Idea of Peace

    Technology technology
    12
    22 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    A
    "Totally not a narc, inc."
  • 35 Stimmen
    16 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    M
    This is what I want to know also. "AI textbooks" is a great clickbait/ragebait term, but could mean a great variety of things.