what’s wrong with simple cryptographic signatures?
why do I need a block chain?
you should know i am earnest. i’m learning how to snark. i try to say what i mean and mean what i say.
sometimes i do try to make jokes, but I am not sarcastic.
what’s wrong with simple cryptographic signatures?
why do I need a block chain?
this is exactly why section 230 exists. sites aren’t responsible for what other people post and they are allowed to moderate however they want.
the law that protected concerted organizing activity is the same that took the teeth out of the unions. i want to see that law abolished, but i’m an anarchist, so i want them all gone.
concerted organizing activity is protected under the law. talking about it with your boss yourself is not organizing activity. talking about it with a coworker in front of your boss is.
this is what a job journal is for. it would prove what happened.
anarchists have had to deal with this for over a century. the state can go fuck itself.
they could develop new features but intentionally implement them in a way that they are not compatible with other services. they could put all the other instances they federate with on rolling blackouts so that it seems like they are down when in fact it’s just them cutting the connection. doing just these two things with purpose could make it look like Facebook has the most advanced and stable instance. in addition, as you mentioned, it would also have the biggest populace. there would be pressure to abandon other instances to join that instance to stay in touch.
if you think I violated a rule you should report it.
>If you call liberals fascists, you are alienating a potential ally
leftists have a saying:
scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds.
if liberals want to be my ally, they will abandon liberalism.
again, this is easily disprovable. you are paranoid
again, this is easily disprovable. you are paranoid
first, i don’t use capitalization, my account is years older, we talk about (almost) entirely disparate topics, and we have conflicting political views. you’d never catch me saying this:
"The GOP intends to coup. "
and my posting history will back that up.
>Democrats aren’t generally fascists.
i’d disagree, but, again, i’m consulting mussolini for my definition, not 21st century vibes.
first, i don’t use capitalization, my account is years older, we talk about (almost) entirely disparate topics, and we have conflicting political views. you’d never catch me saying this:
"The GOP intends to coup. "
and my posting history will back that up.
again, this is easily disprovable. you are paranoid
that’s a lie easily disprovable. you’re paranoid.
>, it doesn’t include contemporary American fascism, which openly derides the state as an institution.
i would say that’s not true. i’d say the democrats are fantastic fascists who laud the state as the panacea for all of society’s ills. but even the republicans would never try to degrade the military and policing power of the state.
>you’ve already had one comment removed
appeal to authority
>Clearly nobody agrees with you.
bandwagon fallacy
do you trust the person who signed it? if not, dont fucking trust it.
what more needs to be done?