• 0 Posts
  • 42 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
cake
Cake day: July 15th, 2024

help-circle




  • You got it ass-backwards. The point of the UN as opposed to LoN was that it can enforce shit. And do that very heavily. The only problem was that the chosen group of wise and powerful to decide this now includes Russia as the heir of the USSR (why the hell) and China (which is not the China that got the place initially) and UK (which is collecting cannibals to suck off all over the globe) and USA (which just arbitrarily invaded Iraq and didn’t even apologize) and France (seems kinda normal, but CFA etc were not nice) and the situation really sucks.


  • or anybody else: the whole point of the place is as a diplomatic talking shop for everybody

    Except Artsakh and Tigray and Rojava and … Cause UN membership has been coerced to be used as some “proof of sovereignty” while it’s not even in UN’s own founding documents. So a non-UN member state won’t get accepted to UN (cause everybody voting likes their elevated status through such a situation) and additionally can be militarily attacked, even wiped out, and everybody acts as if that were normal, while, again, even in the UN charter it’s not.

    I’d argue the harm from that is bigger than the purpose you named. After all, diplomats can already talk wherever they want and they do.











  • Dunno, my cousins’ dad was a 17yo soldier. One can say it was a better time cause he was on the winning side, and now that has become the losing side.

    Mass surveillance was more old-school, but governments were still pretty harsh.

    They had Trump. He just was younger, Democrat and apparently popular.

    They had AI in your spam mail.

    Climate collapse … again, where half my family is from, war broke logistics in the 90s, so to have heat at winter people would cut down trees. A lot of forest lost. But one can say it was a better time because “the world” cared more about civilians suffering than about forests. I suspect now climate activists would act differently.





  • Telegram is not a privacy tool.

    I mean, if he’s convicted for a privacy tool, while it’s not a privacy tool, we have a bit of ambiguity.

    Arguably advertising something which is not a privacy tool as one is fraud. Maybe even phishing, since TG the company has in plaintext all the chat history of its users.

    And this

    The meaning of that word “complicity” seems to be revealed by the last three charges: Telegram has been providing users a “cryptology tool” unauthorised by French regulators.

    in non-libertarian language means something similar, that is, that something not confirmed to be a privacy tool is being provided as a privacy tool.

    I am a libertarian, but in this case they are consistent, if I’m reading this correctly. They are not abusing power, they are doing exactly what they are claiming to be doing.

    Also maybe I’m just tired of Telegram. It’s engaging, and I have AuDHD, which means lots of energy spent, and I can’t drop it completely because work, and also some small communities are available as TG channels. Would be wonderful were they to move at least to WhatsApp, but it is what it is.

    Still, ability to easily create a blog (what a TG channel really is for its users) reachable without bullshit is a niche in huge demand. LJ filled that at some point, Facebook did at another, TG does now.

    Something like this is desperately needed. I’d say the solution should be complementary to Signal - that is, DMs and small groups should not be its thing. Neither should be privacy of huge chats and channels - they’d be public anyway. However, anonymity with means to counter spam should, so should be metadata of user activity.