• jwt
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    (1) Agreed of course, but I don’t see much of an issue there. You try to get a 100% coverage on your blockade, but 99% will move twitter to compliance too. same goes for (2). As for (3), I’m not really sure why you directed that at me.

    • iii@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      I think it’s dangerous to be unscathed by governments deciding which publishers publish “truth”, and which don’t.

      To not care if the “law” applies to 100% of the population, or only 95%. Some more equal under the law than others.

      I bring up 3, because the idea behind www was to counteract the points above.

      Imagine the same techniques used by a government you do not agree with. It’s very scary, no?

      • jwt
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        That has nothing to do with what I was answering to OP (who seems to have a difficult time translating ‘operating in’ to ‘being reachable from’), I don’t know why you are trying to debate (?) me on something else completely. Same goes for the www, I’ve never called it that.

        • iii@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          I’m sorry your anger doesn’t allow you to see the connection between the technical implementation, and philosophy of www, and your own answer to OPs question.