2 / 4 of those countries are MLs.

lemmy.ml seems to have a fairly low send queue to kbin.earth, but lemmygrad was behind and picked up within the last day

See if its resolved now.

Zero to racism in less than a few hours

I’m not an expert, but I think the fact that you need to set a TARGET in anubis, IE, where does anubis send you after passing it, means that you do need separate anubis’s for each site.

Peer tube uses webtorrents, which for many reasons haven’t caught on. It’s still mainly centralized nodes with massive hosting costs. Torrents are the fully decentralized answer.

Most of the channels I know ask for donations via patreon or other funding platforms. I don’t think youtube pays much except for maybe the top 1% of slop channels.

Lemmy has a separated UI and backend hosted on different ports, so its trivial for us to just only use anubis for the front end. We couldn’t put it in front of everything due to apps also.

Every single youtube channel needs to start seeding torrents of their videos, and posting those links to other platforms (here, mastodon, etc).

Youtube / google could be defeated collectively if creators were to consistently do this, and interested people had the ability to help seed videos.

Yep, essentially the botPolicy.yaml there could be a collectively developed anubis config, based on what works best.

Thx, subbed.

No probs. Why not, do they have you blocked, or did piefed code in a Cowbee filter 🤣

This is the right answer. The PRC doesn’t let US surveillance giants operate within their country like most other countries naively do.

NoWayKnowHow - The firewall is good actually

You can curate your own feed: use the block button for any communities you don’t want to see.

As for why there’s a lot of politics on lemmy: The west’s leading country just threatened to annihalate an entire civilization yesterday. Kind of a lot going on right now.

As @Cowbee@lemmy.ml mentioned, PSL (and a few other socialist parties), are the only real opposition, since they’re a working-class party that’s consistently anti-war and anti-capitalism.

From crash course socialism:

Socialists view democracy under capitalism to be impossible. Most current-day systems are better labeled as Bourgeois Democracy, or democracy for the rich only, which socialists contrast with proletarian democracy. Under capitalism, political parties, representatives, infrastructure, and the media are controlled by capitalists, who place restrictions on the choices given to workers, limit their representative options to vetted capitalist puppets, and limit the scope of public debate to pro-capitalist views.

Bourgeois democracies are in reality Capitalist Dictatorships, resulting in legislation favorable to the wealthy, regardless of the population’s actual preferences. The Princeton Study, conducted in the US in 2014, found that the preferences of the average US citizen exert a near-zero influence on legislation, making the US system of elections and campaigning little more than political theater. Multi-party, Parliamentary / representative democracy has proven to be the safest shell for capitalist rule, regardless of voting methods or differing political structures, for countries as diverse as Australia, Japan, Sweden, the UK, the US, South Korea, or Brazil.

Ancient Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle more accurately defined Democracy as rule by the poor, and they considered states based on elections to be anti-democratic Aristocracies, since only the wealthy and ruling families have the resources to finance elections. They contrasted this with random selection / sortition, and citizen’s assemblies, as being the defining features of democracy, both of which are nonexistent in the countries listed above. Today, liberal / parliamentary “democracies” are dominated by wealthy candidates, and entrenched political families, with Capitalists standing above political power.

This system of sham elections acts as a distracting theater piece, giving the illusion of democracy, whilst in reality it serves to platform capitalist views, make them appear more popular than they are, and manufacture consent for the system itself.

Examples of restrictions include a media and news monopoly, 2, gerrymandering, long term limits with no way to recall unpopular representatives, restrictions crafted to disenfranchise poor and minority voters, bills directly crafted by lobbyists and bourgeois lawmakers, voter suppression, electoral fraud, unverifiable closed source electronic voting systems, capitalist campaign financing, low voter to representative ratios, inconvenient voting locations and times, and most importantantly, candidate stacking. Most elections are performed before we ever get to the polling booth. In short, political democracy can’t exist without economic democracy, and true democracy is only possible when workers control production.

The impossibility of Capitalist democracy to make a transition to working-class democracy is best shown by the phrase: Capitalists will not allow you to vote away their wealth. Pacifism, and elections have never been an effective means of disenfranchising the ruling class.

Communists propose building alternatives alongside of bourgeois democracy, with the goal of to replacing it with Proletarian democracy. Measures might include:

• Replacement of bourgeois parliamentary bodies with broadly inclusive workers organizations, such as unions, councils, or syndicates.
• Seizing land, productive facilities, and housing and putting them under democratic control.
• Elimination of all debts, suppression of all private banks and stock markets.
• Direct democracy in as many decisions as possible, often called cyber communism.
• A democratically planned economy for human needs, with open participation.
• Low-level workplace democracy.
• Elimination of the standing army, and the substitution for it of armed workers.
• An emphasis on universal education, health-care, child-care, care for the elderly, and human welfare, paid for socially.
• Increase in productive technology.
• Low levels of wealth and income inequality, often driven by a system of labor vouchers for compensation.
• Experts (if any) elected by the working class through universal suffrage.
• All representatives and officials (including police) are revocable at any time.
• Public officials are paid worker’s wages.

I also highly suggest Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz - An indigenous people’s history of the US.

That and Sakai - Settlers, would probably make the overall 3 best comprehensive US history textbooks.

You have to kinda suspend your disbelief a little bit when watching the show, especially since its based in Los Angeles, in reality one of the most corrupt and racist police forces on the planet. IRL they would never go after rich socialites in the way Columbo does.

Luckily in the show there’s barely any presence from his higher ups, you get the feeling that they just let this magic murder-solving troll do his thing and never interfere.

That pic is highly memeable.

If phones did this, especially to custom-tailor ads, like I’ve seen claimed countless times, then security researchers would be perfectly capable of uncovering this behavior without someone on the inside.

When you make calls via these services, the entirety of that data is being routed through their service. What you’re asking is if google/apple actually stores that data. You should always assume they do, for a threat analysis.

I suggest reading about the Crypto AG honeypot scandal, which was a secure service that ran for over 60 years before it was revealed to be an CIA honeypot. Leaks in the future will likely reveal the same for US surveillance capital services.

Would take a whistleblower to expose these things, and usually its done many years after.

Also its not that there’s some person currently listening. Its that they’re storing and probably transcribing all communications for all time, so that at any moment in the future, they can target a person and look up that history.

Also we know google and apple have been forwarding all these to the US goverment also, since at least ~2011, via the prism program, and thanks to Snowden and Manning’s leaks.

They also do have spaces where they organize and plan too, the US-based think tank Council on Foreign Relations is probably the main one. From Paul Williams - Operation Gladio:

In 1961, the Christian Science Monitor described the CFR as “probably one of the most influential, semipublic organizations in the field of foreign policy.” It noted that the organization is “composed of 1,400 of the most elite names in the world of government, labor, business, finance, communication, the foundations, and the academies,” and “has staffed almost every key position of every administration since that of FDR.”8 Fourteen years later, Rear Admiral Chester Ward, a member of the CFR for sixteen years, reported that a powerful clique within the organization sought “the surrender of the sovereignty of the national independence of the United States” to create a one world government.9

Few critics of the CFR were more vocal than Senator Barry M. Goldwater, who wrote in his memoirs: “Their goal is to impose a benign stability on the quarreling family of nations through merger and consolidation. They see the elimination of national boundaries, the suppression of racial and ethnic loyalties as the most expeditious avenue to world peace. Their rationale rests exclusively on materialism.”10 After noting that CFR members control both political parties, Goldwater continued:

“When we change presidents, it is understood to mean that the voters are ordering a change in national policy. Since 1945 three different Republicans have occupied the White House for a period of sixteen years. Four Democrats have held this most powerful post for seventeen years. With the exception of the first seven years of the Eisenhower administration, there has been no appreciable change in foreign or domestic policy direction…. When a new President comes on board, there is a great turnover in personnel but no change in policy. Example: During the Nixon years Henry Kissinger, CFR member and Nelson Rockefeller’s protégé, was in charge of foreign policy. When Jimmy Carter was elected, Kissinger was replaced by Zbigniew Brzezinski, CFR member and David Rockefeller’s protégé.”

[…] Among its members were Allen Dulles, CIA director from 1953 to 1961; William F. Buckley, CIA agent and publisher of National Review; master CIA operatives Robert R. Bowie, Donald Gregg, and Deane R. Hinton; Katharine Graham, CIA advisor and the publisher of The Washington Post; Edward Martin, former OSS deputy chief of staff and US ambassador to Argentina from 1964 to 1968; Henry Sturgis Morgan, OSS officer and co-founder of Morgan Stanley; Jacob D. Beam, CIA agent and US ambassador to the USSR from 1969 to 1973; General Lyman Lemnitzer, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO from 1963 to 1969; Dean Acheson, US secretary of state from 1949 to 1953; Henry Kissinger, US national security advisor from 1969 to 1973; and David M. Kennedy, Sindona’s business partner, who served as the US secretary of the Treasury from 1969 to 1971. Other members of the prestigious “club,” at that time, were Kingman Brewster Jr., president of Yale from 1963 to 1977; Arthur F. Burns, chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1970 to 1978; Navy Admiral William J. Crowe; Thomas S. Gates, US secretary of Defense from 1969 to 1961; J. Peter Grace, CEO of W. R. Grace and chairman of Radio Free Europe; Henry A. Grunwald, managing editor of Time magazine; Irving Kristol, founder of Encounter, a magazine funded by the CIA; William S. Paley, chairman of CBS from 1946 to 1983; Robert McNamara, US secretary of Defense from 1961 to 1968 and president of the World Bank from 1968 to 1981; Nelson Rockefeller, governor of New York from 1956 to 1973; and David Rockefeller, CEO of Chase Manhattan Bank and founder of the Trilateral Commission. The list even included the names of Lyndon Baines Johnson, the thirty-sixth president of the United States, and Hubert H. Humphrey, his vice president from 1965 to 1969.12