mintyfrog

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

You cannot trust a government to routinely create arbitrary standards used to regulate that same government.

This is different from a government enforcing your average law because this law applies to the election process itself and allows for significant bias. Where there is room for bias in this process, it will be taken advantage of. Look at gerrymandering.

What problem does your law actually solve? If people are willing to elect a candidate, isn’t that a sufficient measure of competency? At best you’re creating an elitist state controlled by those who set the bar for competency, and at worst you’re creating a one party state.

Most of what you’ve described would inevitably lead to the establishment of a single party totalitarian state.

Competency tests before you can appear on a ballot, with a commission that reviews the requirements to prevent the exclusion of minorities.

Don’t like the opposing party? Just make it part of the test. Today, one party could exclude the other by including questions that agree or disagree with critical race theory, voter fraud, etc.

No elected judges, with stringent training and yearly bias testing. Like a postdoc in judicial impartiality.

Same issue. Who determines impartiality? The party in power? Single party state.

Any person who is a position of trust and power who then acts contrary to the ethics of their role can never be elected. Or have power over anyone again.

Who determines “ethics”? Single party state.

Children must be free of religion until they are 25.

What is religion? You’re definitely banning several books, and possibly banning a lot more. Many books can be turned into a religion or contain religious aspects. The party in power decides what’s a religion and what gets banned.

USA focused: each state gets one senator, plus one per 2 million residents.

At that point, why have a separate Senate and House? The point of a two-chambered Congress is to balance state and federal power.

Oversight by whom?

I run a Pi Zero W over wifi as my backup pi-hole so that clients can still connect if my main system is updating or down. Planning to get a more powerful one for OctoPrint.

If you’re paying for video or audio calls, you’re doing it because you want features or privacy. I doubt Twitter offers more features, and I know they won’t offer more privacy.

Communities with older people. I still need Reddit for communities on old motorcycles, cars, etc

2. Bash scripts which updates my system (not completely, snaps and flatpaks seem to be immune to this). I am pretty sure you can’t do this on Windows.

Can’t you just add a line in the script

flatpak update

I hate it. It’s pointless, it slows me down, its a risk of theft, and it costs me money.

You’re kind of arguing against the foundation of human society. If we’re all required to “do our own research” about things, where does that requirement end?

Yes, you should do your own research. How much research you need to do depends on the subject matter, how critical it is, and the potential for motivation to mislead you. I can’t tell you where that ends, but for politics and news I am of the opinion that it should end a lot later than trusting a random stranger to censor your access to content.

How can I buy food if I have to do my own research on what’s healthy or what’s dangerous?

You probably should research this.

What about my tap water?

Yeah, you probably should also research this before drinking it because of how critical it is. Maybe get it tested or read your city’s water test results. Do they have motivation to mislead you?

How can I put gas in my car? Use electricity? A computer? A phone?

I’m not sure what the struggle is here.

Somewhere along the way you have to trust the systems that have been built by the people before us to function, and for people who work in those fields who are experts to use their expertise.

Yes and no. Should you see inconsistencies, you should probably verify that what you’re trusting is accurate. Inconsistencies like blocking wikileaks on a qanon blocklist. However, what you’re talking about isn’t even the case here. We’re talking about a blocklist maintained by strangers on the internet.

Perhaps you’re not familiar with this blocklist and how it doesn’t exclusively include QAnon sources, as I indicated.

No list can exclusively contain QAnon sources. It isn’t possible. You’re relying on someone else or a group of people to make that determination. In doing so, you’re blocking non-QAnon sources that you may just happen to disagree with. They also block far-right sites as described in the Github. How far to the right does the site have to be to be blocked? You’ve now created an echo chamber by blocking the opposition, all because you trusted that a list called “no-qanon” only blocked QAnon.

Even if what you’re saying is true, you’re now relying on someone else (or a group of people) to censor sites you wouldn’t like and also not be susceptible to those things when creating this blocklist. You’re ignoring the risks associated with false positives. You can’t outsource your own critical thinking.

Labeling the opposition as a deranged cult that must be censored doesn’t exactly sound anti-fascist to me. Again, not talking about hate groups here or anyone that advocates for violence.

Name a major media outlet that hasn’t been suspected to be influenced by Russia.

Nope. The linked list does. Check the URLs. WikiLeaks is blocked.

Doesn’t it sound at least a little bit foolish to trust someone else to intentionally censor the politics of your internet? You’re creating your own echo chamber.

How can you understand and disagree with the other side if you can’t even read their content? I’m not even talking about hate groups, I’m talking basics like WikiLeaks and the NRA.