Down-voting every youtube link is indeed the only individual action that can be taken in the current system. It could theoretically lead to a YT link being folded or sunk lower. Tricky though because people should know why their YT links get down-voted. Ideally you would be able to tell them in a response. But I think I know how that would go: people with digital inclusion principles have actually become a diluted small minority in the fedi. A flood of lemmy.world folks who would follow the crowd off a cliff would down-vote your reply and up-vote the YT link in solidarity of their favorite walled gardens.

You could DM the reason for down-voting. But then the problem does not get the exposure it needs.

The fedi has evolved like Burning Man. The movement was true to its founding principles early on but as the crowd grew over the years it became enshittified faster than a digital rights subculture could take hold.

BTW, I should mention that sh.itjust.works is also a centralised Cloudflare node.

My point still stands.

Of course it doesn’t. Your point doesn’t even grasp the problem. You think the problem is that fedi users have (or have not) entitlement to content. It’s a red herring. You cannot begin to solve a problem you do not understand. It does not matter who is “entitled” to the content. The content is exclusive; locked inside a walled-garden with a gatekeeper. The problem is that exclusive access content is being linked on an open content platform and shoved in the face of readers who do not have access to the closed content.

The moment you are using someone else’s platform

Again, you still fail to grasp the problem. Using someone else’s platform is not a premise. You can either be on someone else’s node or you can be on your own self-hosted node. Either way, exclusive links are in the reader’s face.

How can you get so many things wrong… then you claim using one platform inherently revokes rights outside that platform – of course not. Irrelevant regardless, but rights granted on one platform do not diminish rights on another.

you loose the rights to the content outside of that platform.

It’s not about “rights”. That’s a legal matter. It’s about digital inclusion (a technical matter). People don’t want to see links that exclude them. It’s just pollution.

To reach the particular law office which has become a specialist in this particular case, yes you are trapped because they use MS Outlook. There is no way to exchange email with them without involving MS.

Victims can use any lawyer, but any other lawyer will need to research the case (at the victim’s cost).

better than what? I’m not understanding your comparison here.

You’ve misunderstood the problem. It’s not a fix to access content that’s needed. The question is how to fix the pollution: exclusive walled-garden links appearing outside of the walled garden (where not everyone has access or is part of the special club of Google/Facebook/Cloudflare patrons). How did you misunderstand when I mentioned a toggle? And the title… how could I make the title more clear?

Self hosting would mean I could control account creation and make many burner accounts. But there are issues with that:

• If there are several burner accounts then the admin would have to make it easy for others to create burner accounts or else it would be evident that all the burner accounts are just the admin’s, which does not solve the aggregation problem. It introduces complexities because the DNS provider and ISP would have the identity of the self-hoster. One could onion host but that greatly narrows the audience.
• It does not solve the problem for others. Everyone who has the same need would then be needlessly forced to independently solve all these same problems.
• I do not have high-speed unlimited internet, so I would have to spend more on subscription costs.

I think it complicates the problem and then each author has to deal with the same. If it’s solved at the fedi API level, then the existing infrastructure is ready to work.

(edit) I recall hearing about a fedi client application that operates in a serverless way. I don’t recall the name of it and know little about how it works, but it is claimed to not depend on account creation on a server and it somehow has some immunity to federation politics. Maybe that thing could work but I would have to find it again. It’s never talked about and I wonder why that is… maybe it does not work as advertised.

Those do not obviate the use cases I have in mind. Secure drops are useful tools for specific whistle blowing scenarios. But they are not a one-size-fits-all tool.

I routinely use framadrop and then transmit the links to regulators or whoever I am targeting to act on a report. But what if the target audience is not a specific journalist or regulator but rather the entire general public? The general public does not have access to reports submitted to the Guardian’s dropbox or NYTimes’ dropbox. Those are exclusive channels of communication just for their own journalists. The report then only gets acted on or exposed if the story can compete with the sensationalisation level of other stories they are handling. If I’m exposing privacy abuses, the general public does not give a shit about privacy for the most part. So only highly scandelous privacy offenses can meet the profitable publication standards of Guardian and nytimes. The reports also cannot be so intense as to be on par with Wikileaks. There is a limited intensity range.

The fedi offers some unique reach to special interest groups like this one without the intensity range limitation.

NYtimes is also a paywall. So even if the story gets published it still ends up a place of reduced access.

They are great tools for some specific jobs but cannot wholly replace direct anonymous publication. Though I must admit I often overlook going to journalists. I should use those drop boxes more often.

(edit) from the guardian page:

Once you launch the Tor browser, copy and paste the URL xp44cagis447k3lpb4wwhcqukix6cgqokbuys24vmxmbzmaq2gjvc2yd.onion or theguardian.securedrop.tor.onion into the Tor address bar.

That theguardian.securedrop.tor.onion URL caught my attention. I did not know about onion names until now. Shame it’s only for secure drops.

That story is focused on #CloudSTRIKE but the bigger more remarkable demon here is #CloudFLARE.

This story demonstrates Cloudflare acting as a proxy bully of their own customer, on behalf of CloudStrike by pushing a frivilous #DMCA take-down demand. CF took the spineless route as it sees CloudStrike as having more muscle than their customer. After CF joins the Goliath side of the David vs. Goliath battle, CF ignores Senk’s responses and keeps proxying threats.

Senk bounced from Cloudflare and went to a provider who has his back. #ArsTechnica publishes Cloudflare’s conduct. As embarrassment hits Cloudflare and David (Senk) starts winning against Goliath (CloudStrike), CF changes their tune. Suddenly they are on Senk’s side, saying “come back, we’ll protect you – we promise we didn’t get your messages”. LOL. Senk should do a parody site for Cloudflare too.

Senk’s mistake: leaving CF. He should have waited until CF actually booted him. Then that would have more thoroughly exposed CF’s shitty actions. Senk gave CF an easy out.

Interesting to note how a human on the side of civil rights who advocates decentralisation was treated with hostility by Cloudflare. Yet CF is fine with sheltering actual criminals.

Customers should take several proactive steps to protect their personal information and reduce potential risks: Be Wary of Phishing Attempts

Customers should rethink their stupid ass decision to use AT&T in the first place since it has been known for over a decade that AT&T is the most privacy abusive of all US telecoms, most notably their role in project Fairview (archive for clearnet users and wikipedia).

AT&T customers don’t give a shit about privacy. But I do have some sympathy for all the non-AT&T people who communicated with AT&T pawns.

BTW, the OP’s link avoids reclaimthenet’s shitty popup if proxied through 12ft.io:

https://12ft.io/https://reclaimthenet.org/nearly-all-at

Not sure it matters since the text is in the OP anyway… guess if someone wants to share it around.

Folks, FedEx has always been on the extreme right. Some basic facts:

• FedEx is an ALEC member (extreme right lobby and bill mill), largely as an anti-union measure
• FedEx founded by an ex military serviceman
• FedEx gives discounts for NRA membership (though I heard this was recently discontinued). NRA is obviously an extreme right org who also finances ALEC.
• During the NFL take-a-knee protest, FedEx is one of very few die-hard corps that refused to give in to the boycott. FedEx continued supporting the NFL against all the Black Lives Matter athletes taking knees and getting punished.
• FedEx ships shark fins, slave dolphins and hunting trophies. Does not give a shit about harm to animals (even when endangered) or environment.

I have been boycotting FedEx for over a decade. Certainly being pro-surveillance is fitting with their history and should not be a surprise to anyone who is aware of this background.

The only moral inconsistency is that FedEx has a reputation for not snooping on your packages and seems to be favored by people shipping contraband. But to find the consistency it’s just about the bottom line. They make no money by ratting out their customers who break the law. But installing a surveillance system on their trucks is probably yielding revenue for FedEx.

Sounds mostly reasonable… but I don’t see the alternate citizenship helping, unless you mean to go as far as renouncing because all FATCA regions (~130+ countries) look at the birthplace, not nationality, and you can never get a new birthplace. It’s probably hard to find a non-FATCA region where you can trust the banks. But indeed… getting your 4th amendment rights has come to extremes.

That makes some sense.

In my case I think I have credit that I’ve never actually used; and I think I’ve also put on their file that I am unemployed. So in principle consumers who either don’t care for the credit, or are happy to be in the highest risk category, they should not be harassed with this. I will just ignore it and see what happens.

I doubt it. It will probably show the clearnet address. I just now logged in via the onion, so this reply will be a test.

Replacement link to a privacy-respecting host:

https://www.blankrome.com/publications/us-department-commerce-publishes-proposed-rule-imposing-know-your-customer-and

This article seems to suggest the KYC rules only apply to foreign customers:

https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/commerce-proposes-rule-to-fight-foreign-cloud-cyber-threats-a-24219

but then you have to wonder how they will know you’re domestic without a bit of KYC on Americans as well.

BTW, a good way to find privacy-respecting links is to search using this service:

https://ombrelo.im5wixghmfmt7gf7wb4xrgdm6byx2gj26zn47da6nwo7xvybgxnqryid.onion/

That search tool will not return Cloudflare MitMd links.

I’m not on a good enough connection to watch videos but when I read “How the Religion called Atheism…” I know it cannot be coming from any sort of credible source. Atheism is absence of religion, not a religion in itself. It includes both agnostics and gnostics (both those who are convinced there is no god and those who are unconvinced either way). So I don’t suppose it’s worth it to note the URL and try to fetch the video when I have a good connection.

Lawmakers have figured out they can circumvent 4A by forcing the private sector and external governments to do their surveillance. It worked for banking KYC and it worked for FATCA. The industry is apparently not worried at all about losing customers. And they won’t. To circumvent 4A, just outsource governance to a non-government entity.

Love the irony of being blocked from reading that article because I am anonymous and the #reclaimthenet hypocrits insist on using Cloudflare.

So I can only comment on the title and what the OP (apparently) copied. Judging by how the masses happily continue using banks who voluntarily abuse KYC by collecting more info than required, internet users will also be pushovers who give in to whatever KYC comes their way.

This policy will actually create victims. Just like GSM registration creates victims. In regions that require GSM registration phone theft goes up because criminals will steal a phone just for a live SIM chip. So KYC creates incentive for criminals to run their services from someone else’s PC.

This is a double-edged sword. In the US, banking is really optional. You can live an unbanked life in the US and get paid in cash, if you want. And you can force creditors to accept your cash payment on debts. That’s an important freedom.

In Europe, where banking is treated as a public service that all people are entitled to, they have created a system where you must use a bank. They have banned cash payment for wages. So you have a right to a bank acct but then you are forced to use it.

#warOnCash #forcedBanking

You’ve misunderstood the problem if you fail to see that ruling in favor of one party necessarily violates the rights of the other party. The decision was a compromise on which party’s rights carry more weight to prevail over the rights of the other party. Both parties had rights worthy of defending.

Of course I have biases, but the bias does not reflect in my thesis (which is the opposite of what you realize). In particular, just because I find the bakers to be bigots does not mean I expect them to lose in court. I still actually believe the bigoted bakers rightfully won the case (thus, this does not prove your point, which is that you think there should have been no court case). The court case was not about whether they are bigots. It’s about whether an artist should be forced to produce art that favorably expresses people/ideas they hate against their 1st amendment rights also amid their right to choose who to do business with.

So the court was right to rule in favor of the bakers. But your claim that there should not have been a court case at all remains unsupported. The case had merit. The rights of people in a protected group (sexual orientation) were discriminated against and so they were rightfully given a forum to have their legitimate complaint heard.

IMO, it’s a fucked up extreme bias that brings you to consider the case frivolous, as if one side of the debate did not have enough merit to even warrant a court case.