e$tGyr#J2pqM8v

it’s a misconception that a decentralized service cannot be banned. In fact it’s not hard at all

Could someone expand upon this? I’m don’t know much about tech, but the idea that FOSS decentralized platforms can’t be banned does seem to make sense right? Ban one, another one will pop up, etc. What am I not getting here?

recently been finding it a lot easier to find my stuff on Soulseek rather than torrent sites.

This is wonderful, I’ve been struggling with piped for some time now, it’s always asking me to sign in to confirm that I’m not a bot. Also it’s showing me videos in very low quality and often it stops loading halfway through the video. With this I get to see good quality videos once more, without unwanted pauses and without financing yt in any way. Great!

But ads are not functioning, they are destructive. They are by no means cheap either, people are paying through being manipulated and we are paying collectively for the damage it’s doing to our world. We’d be much better of if we had only direct payments. Direct artist payments will always be the more effective and efficient financing structure because then we pay just for the creative output, not all the unrelated economic parasitic activities.

The solution is very simple and there is nothing that inflation can do about it: we don’t watch ads, we pay creators that we want to support, and if from these donations a creator doesn’t earn enough money he has two options: 1. One has an intrinsic drive to create and publish so he does so through other means, for instance by working a part time job. If this sounds unreasonable then let us not forget that already most of all human creativity is financed exactly like this, it is only the exception that is financially lucrative. 2. One chooses not to create (or in a less costly manner). You could think of this as a sad outcome, but you’d be better off concluding that this creative output wasn’t so important to anyone, not to the creator nor to the public. This means we’d be left with the better and more intrinsically motivated creative content.

So let’s not justify ads, but let’s reject them in the most radical ways we can.

Ads exist because people want to make money. So these bad actors go out and look for places where people like to spend their time, and they poison these places with their money-hungry practices. In the process they destroy the innocence of all these manifestations of human creativity, and manipulate people into buying shit they don’t actually need, effectively destroying the planet through overconsumption. That’s not even mentioning that ad-companies put us on a path towards a mass-surveillance society, just because big-data leads to more effective ads. I can’t help but see ads as a destructive force of evil in our world. I like human creativity in it’s many forms, and I’m all in favor of rewarding creators to a certain extent, but using ads seems to be the worst possible method of doing so.

(not intending to criticize your comments, just spreading the anti-ad gospel ;-)

I would love for this to become successful! I am assuming it’s not in any great state yet, but the decentralized future is waiting for us !

There’s a system in place for that. It’s called ‘verklaring omtrent gedrag’. For many jobs and positions you need this certificate of conduct in order to apply. The ministry of justice will not hand out the certificate if your crime is related to the position you apply for. This means he would probably never be allowed to work at a school for instance.

Formication is the sensation resembling that of small insects crawling on the skin, in the absence of actual insects.

Never asserted that notion. Of course you’re free to do so. I am just saying it’s self righteous and not helping any one.

I am not at all telling victims to shut up. You just made that up.

Dutch courts haven’t found him guilty of rape, but did find him guilty of having sex with a 12 year old. That itself is more than terrible but calling it rape despite this fact is in fact a misrepresentation of what happened. Sure it was terrible thing that he did and I am not defending his actions at all. I am defending his right to participate in sports events and pleading against trial by media/public outrage.

I’m not angry, just sharing my thoughts. How does it work? Like I said, I am against media-fueled public rage in cases like these.

He did serve his time, according to the Dutch rule. His initial sentence was longer because it was in the UK and over there they consider every sexual activity with a minor rape, where as in the Netherlands they differentiate between actual rape and misconduct.

It’s not at all about that and I never suggested it is.

I agree with most of what you say, including what you say about the alcohol involved. Ultimately though the point is that he should be punished by courts, which has happened, and not by public outrage because media and public aren’t well suited to judge people fairly.

I understand he’s isolated from the other athletes so that doesn’t seem to be the case. The word rape is a misrepresentation of what happened. He hasn’t forced himself on the girl, but it’s misconduct because any sexual contact with a 12 year old is obviously a crime. Still that distinction is important in Dutch law, and rightfully so because obviously forcing yourself on a 12 year old is even worse than consensual sex, and it’s rather bizarre that this is lost in English law and everything is ‘rape’. Again, not defending his actions, but all nuance is lost in this discussion. Yes, to be nuanced you sometimes need more than one sentence.

Fair point about the paragraphs. Other than that I disagree with you.

In the Netherlands you’ll need a certificate of conduct for many positions and if your criminal record is relevant to a position you won’t get the position. This is reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the Ministry of Justice and Security. So if he applied for a job as a coach for children then he would obviously be refused because of his criminal record, given that there’s a direct link to his crime and logically a clear change for recidivism. But his criminal record is not relevant for his position as an athlete. There’s nothing that would stop someone with a criminal record to become famous in such a way. This is not a flaw in the system, it’s a choice that was consciously made. We choose to only limit peoples freedom where there would logically be a big chance of recidivism. We don’t want to ban people to the shadows where they should keep there head down in shame.

Also you seem to be missing the crucial point here: all of it should be decided by rule of law, not by self righteous media-fueled public rage. The media and the public aren’t properly informed nor equipped to weigh these things. The risk of misguided public hatred is immense. That’s not something we should want in our society.

Feel free to disagree but I think we should be very happy that this is the way it is, because this means people actually get a second chance.

So am I. Good luck with your self-righteousness.

People seem to find it terribly hard to find nuance when something awful like this happened. But losing sight of nuance doesn’t help in any way. Can he participate? Of course he can. Do you need to cheer for him? Of course not, boo as you please, but you’re not helping any one with it.

He was sentenced for his crime, first in England but ultimately he served a sentence according to the Dutch rule of Law, which found him guilty of sexual misconduct of a 12 year old, but not of rape, which in Dutch law is an important distinction. He served his time, he’s had his punishment. You’re more than free to disagree with the Dutch laws and the sentence that he got accordingly. But it’s not up to you. One should be judged by a court, not by the media nor by the public.

I read many people claiming that he has no remorse, quoting all sorts of media coverage. If you think you can judge whether there is remorse based on media coverage you’re awfully mistaken. I’m not claiming he has remorse, but obviously he’ll respond negatively to journalists, and quotes can easily be taken out of context. English media is renowned for being total assholes with zero interest in nuance.

People do horrible things, and this surely is such a thing, but that shouldn’t prevent people from ever participating in society ever again. If we would ban people, make them outcasts forever, that is not helping victims nor prevention in any way. What it will do is increase the taboo, people will refrain from testifying against suspects because even though they want them to be punished, they don’t want media and public going after them and ruining the rest of their lifes. Despite it emotionally being very understandable, this type of shortsighted public outrage is very counter productive and people should use their brains before they rage.

That makes sense. But what about big ongoing projects/ Couldn’t they easily migrate to a FOSS service? I’d imagine people will look out for them specifically no matter where they’re hosted.

I never said I don’t mind them, and I also never said I’d join them. I’m just suggesting we keep the conversation going and settle things with words rather than violence. It’s difficult to have a conversation when you are unable to understand a point someone is making. Not saying you should agree at all. It’s fair to have a difference of opinion. But you just misrepresent what I’m saying, that doesn’t really lead to an interesting conversation in my opinion, so I’m out.

You literally talk in your other reply about how you’ll join them

you did actually tell me in your comment that you don’t really mind nazis as long as they’re not being violent towards you.

This is becoming quite bizarre. Reading back my comments I don’t even know which line you are misinterpreting cause I don’t think I’ve said anything that even comes close to your accusations. Of course I’m not advocating to join nazi’s. I think you’d be better of sticking to what people actually say, or else every online conversation is going to derail as much as this one apparently already did.