pragmakist

deleted by creator

It’s German, and you’re about as right as anyone trying to say a German word in English can expect to get.

Yeah.

And we can still block entire sites on the web.

The sites the friends with adblockers promote.
The friends who don’t notice what they promote.
What unholy bastards the people who own the sites they promote are.

You know, that’s a good idea anyway.

I wonder though what that would mean for the copyright?

In Buddhism, yes.

For Hindus, well, it’s complicated.

For other people who happen to believe in reincarnation?
That would be anybodys guess, I guess.

In Denmark the case surrounding “Nøddebo præstegård” caused copyright to be enacted.

I’ve noticed the theme come up in other countries, amongst these France, but I’ll grant that I may have overestimated its importance by overfitting to prior knowledge.

The purpose of copyright in the USA, and as far as I know in Brittain, yes.

But please remember that in much of the rest of the world copyright is a reaction to people, creators, getting in trouble over third party usage of their creations.

Leading to the idea that a creator should have the power to stop people from using their works for whatever the creator deems objectionable.

You’re right!

(Still think they might be doing just that, some of them.)

That thing where they claim the username/password combo is wrong?

That sounds like a really good idea if the site thinks the reason they’re a lot of different lock-on attemps from that one ip is because its a hacker with a list of stolen credentials.

Basically just tell them their list is fake and “go away and stop bothering our customers, please.”

The usual solution outside the US is to not mention the state at all.

All you need is a right to privacy, not a list of those who are not allowed to peek

State law is one thing, but to me it seems obvous that “his or her right to be secure in their papers” has been broken.

Edit: Unfortunately the founders formulated that as a limit on government, again not actually succeding in securing any rights.

Yeah, also please, make some content.

Doesn’t matter that it stinks, we wont watch it till you get better anyway.

Yeah, I’m on Manjaro and things occasionally go wrong and can be frustrating to fix.

Until you’re comfortable with being in charge of a linux installation, don’t go there.

And because their main competitor depends on them financially.

I have hope that spritely.institute is going to address a number of the obvious problems with the current fediverse.

Until I find the bloody proposal that none of it’s detractors seems to dare link to, I’m going to assume that I, as a citizen of EU, has a clear and present interest in not having Mozilla et al using their control of our browsers to block government services.

I can do without my browser suddenly deciding that it doesn’t trust the fire department, thank you very much.

(Or the pharmacy, or my doctor, or, or or at lot of things.)

I don’t know whether it’s true.

I am however confident that you don’t know either.

But as for the “slightest” research, riddle me this: Why is there no link to the proposal in the article?

I haven’t had a chance to check anything yet, but given who (Mozilla) is reacting and how, I suspect this is just another case of EU authorities acting to protect their citizens from (American) corporate abuse

There are still significant parts of the internet without ads.

Although I’d admit that the gap between the demise of usenet and the birth of the fediverse was tough.

Depending on what they mean by “private” throwing i2p on there instead of ddns might be just the ticket.