Full time smug prick
What to watch: “Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?” Musk asked in a poll of his millions of loyal X followers.
Um, in the …middle? What middle?
Middle like MAGA (who put nazis to shame)? Middle like the dark enlighment (a reactionary movement)? Middle like the AFD (the German neonazi party)?
I am fucking losing it rn, Elmo thinks he is a fucking Centrist. Now I have seen in all.
I am hijacking this thread to bring to your attention that Musk just admitted he rigged the election and the week is not even over yet.
Edit Yes, commentators, I stand by what I said. Axios would not frame it as “nuclear” if he merely meant he poured millions into the elections. His statement “Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate.” is oddly specific, isn’t it.
In good faith, folk: Is this the most suitable community for your content?
Of course, this goes without saying. People fight for prisoners’ conditions right here and now in the belly of capitalism. People support improvement of working conditions and compensation right here and now.
This is in fact in the heart of anarchosyndicalism. I don’t remember when it was the last time I heard that “I do not support X (worker unions, incarcerated rights, homeless people, etc) because they are reformist, and X’s (workers’, prisoners’, homeless people’s) problems will automatically vanish when we reclaim the means of production”.
This is like the quickest way to lose your friends in the anarchist movement. But replace those terms with “women/black/gay/trans” rights and the same incredibly void argument suddenly gains traction lmao. Then there are the edge cases, like trans people are more likely to be unemployed, homeless, and/or incarcerated.
So this is outright hypocrisy, because if you frame the question as “anarchist support for prisoners” they go “yay!”, but if you frame it “anarchist support for trans women” some go “meh”. Well assholes, a trans woman is more likely to become a prisoner, and at that she is more likely to get stripped of her humanity and dignity. So, although there are so many other problems scourging the anarchist movement, I believe in the 21st century an intersectional analysis is essential, an analysis according to which being multiply classed into oppressed groups has a cumulative effect, that can lead to extreme marginalization and even loss of health, and life.
Compared to that even the unskilled blue collar worker of the “ethnic majority” (as per the linked articles terminology) can be seen as privileged, in other words let’s make sure that all human beings can have at least the standard of living that they can be exploited for their manual labor, before we say that all issues are labor versus capital dialectics.
And that having been said, better not get started on American exceptionalism and privilege extending to trans issues as well. There are trans people in Africa, Middle East, South America, and everywhere else, where the stakes are life or death, not whether you get hormones before or after puberty. There are so many people who will just say “this is just so fucked up, there is no point in discussing it, say, about trans rights in Egypt, for instance”.
All these headlines we read about the christian nationalist crackdown on trans rights have a silent part that reads “in America”. There have been tragic crackdowns on trans people in other places and even the trans-focused media won’t write much about.
Don’t get me wrong folks. The intersectional analysis is essential to include feminist, POC, Indigenous, and LGBTQIA+ voices into anarchism and unionism. But it also has to be internationalist, and have less of a First World constitutional democracies bias. This fits in well with an internationalist humanist understanding of anarchism, that sees human dignity as inalienable, regardless of national borders. At least this is the version of anarchism I grew up with.
It reminds me something Noam Chomsky said in an interview. The media are designed so the principles of the system never gets questioned. The so called liberal media, which Trumpists nowadays consider as “radical left”, are just the most left extreme of an extremely right-wing landscape, which is entirely manufactured. In other words, criticizing exploitation is left out of the discussion completely. “Identity politics” and “equal opportunity” is the only way the media will discuss about minorities, because it perpetuates the myth of individual merit and achievement. Collective oppression and collective action are deliberately outside the public discourse, because it challenges the cornerstone of system justification. This is the long and short of it. If you go back to the roots of racism, you will find exploitation. If you go back to the roots of sexism, you will find exploitation. When too many people in legal studies look too deep into this type of thing, it is time to move the window further right: they then crack down on academia.
Oh snap. Fixed it.
Sure, I think the Chomsky article you cited clears things up.
This is some great feedback. I got a hunch something was off about this video, but I posted it anyway. At least now I learned something.
There is a conceptual distinction: Encryption in transit vs. encryption at rest. You may send the packets encrypted to the server, but if they are not encrypted on the server’s file system, anyone can read them.
The real question is, why do you think governments make such a big fuss about citizens having access to military grade encryption?
There have been audits of e2ee implementations, and the algorithms used also have some objective properties. I don’t think that I have ever heard in cryptography discussions that backdoors are so widespread that the discussion is moot. I have only heard, time and time again, the opposite.
Even Apple, in this very occasion, opted to ditch the service rather than backdoor it, and in fact takes the UK to court over this. I think that the opinion that this is all for show is a tad wild, and not very well supported in this occasion.
Like every cryptology book starts with the adage “There is cryptography that prevents your little sister from reading your mail, and cryptography that prevents the government from reading your mail, and we will talk about the latter.”
On the other hand, not all implementations are created equal. Telegram was recently under fire, and there is a lot of variance in e2ee implementations in XMPP clients, IIRC.
And the Baltic sea https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/03/nato-must-prepare-to-defend-its-weakest-point-the-suwalki-corridor/
Credit: This person brought this to my attention: https://lemmy.ml/u/NimdaQA@lemmy.world
Got it, thanks!
The basic way to do this is you respond to these three questions: What am I trying to protect? From whom? What are they able to do to get there?
No shit. They are not the same thing, they are heavily overlapping adjacent sets of people. You draw the line at alt-right, you are left with less than 20% of Republican voters, but a 100% of MAGA hat-bearers. This distinction is more theoretical than practical.
It is one of these cases where that “OR” approaches a singular circle.
Perhaps this explains why all these spook impostors are so vehemently against advanced privacy and anonymity. They are signaling they are the good ones!
This is some Gestapo/Stasi shit.
Like, all queer persons must go beyond Signal/Tor level.
This extends to the physical world: Plan ahead for escape routes and survival networks.
I will come back with this angle but, REMEMBER those mfers who always said “the NSA does not target you, so asking about anything more than Signal is paranoid/futile if ever the NSA targets you”?
REMEMBER that we said that some people have advanced threat models by default? Eg feminist activists, activists in third countries, queer people?
WHO is paranoid now, that being queer, pro-Palestine, and/or climate activists can have you on the watchlist?
They don’t even cite the datapoints, my friend. It is a trademark infringement cease-and-desist…
either Signal fans have to donate more or Signal has to start finding other monetization which if we look at other companies means selling private data.
Lo and behold, after RiseUp now Signal is accused of selling data. Well, it is well known (and audited) that Signal keeps so little metadata it is not even useful to the authorities that have subpoeana-ed it.
This is an extra-ordinary claim you have to back with extra-ordinary evidence, in order to save face.
Clean cut kids do not find Lemmy very palatable.
This is a cool way to protect a belief, narrowing the scope so that the refuting data do not apply anymore. Perhaps I can write a fucking essay about it, but do you have data to support this narrowing move? There is like a ton of data that the West has been invasively spying of possible threats to the status quo (from Cointelpro to undercover UK cops like recently), not just people “acting on it”. Furthermore, actions can fall under protected free speech as well, like putting up a poster, demonstrating, and protesting. So your proposal is inherently undemocratic if you roll back freedom to only protect oral expression, quite similar to a “Don’t ask don’t tell” attitude towards gay people. What you just said is simply counter-factual. Blanket surveillance is a staple of Western societies in the 21st century, and it blows my mind that there are still people oblivious to what is more or less spelled out clearly in the Patriot Act and all laws modeled after it across the globe.