It’s happening all over Europe and the US, but especially Europe. Police were used to being able to eavesdrop on any sort of communication. This becomes ever less possible, while at the same time, you have more and more crimes that are committed solely by communicating and can’t be prosecuted or even detected without massive internet surveillance. I think the US commitment to “free speech”, freedom of information, has a somewhat protective effect.

Of course, these online-only crimes are 99%+ copyright, but even copyright has gained in favor among netizens. Then you have “deep fakes”. Bunch of other stuff like holocaust denial. Going after such stuff is quite popular among lemmings, too. And how else are you going to enforce all that?

Many things are fundamentally feasible. I see 2 things you argue for.

One is changing the caching strategy. I don’t think that’s wise in terms of load sharing, but certainly feasible on a small scale. In certain circumstances, it may be preferred.

The other thing is using older protocols and standards. The practical reason to do this would be to use existing tooling, libraries, code. I’m not seeing such opportunities. I’m not that familiar with these, but it seems like they would have to be extended anyway. So I don’t really see the point.

At a minimum this is adding the number of instances that federate a given content streams to the multiple of storage needed to host the content, even if that storage is ephemeral. Not so big a problem at 100,000 users, but at 100,000,000 users this is a lot of storage cost we are talking about. Unless somehow the user/client doesnt cache the content they pull from an instance locally on their device when they view it?

Worry more about the bandwidth. Your instance would have to serve your content to all these 100M users. The way it is, much of the load goes to the instance where a user is registered. That means that an instance can control hosting costs by closing registrations.

My point was this isn’t an issue when all content is self-hosted, because the author as the host can edit, delete, or migrate all they want and maintain full direct control over the source of that content the client interacts with whenever a pull request comes in. Yes the user Caches the content when they read it, but there is no intermediary copy.

There’s the fundamental problem. What you think of as “your” data, other people think of as “their” data. That can’t be resolved. What’s worse is that controlling “your” data requires controlling other people’s computers and devices, as with DRM.

Almost?

War. War never changes.

Toronto cash seems to avoid the “not incentivice illegal usage”, and after a quick check it seems to be almost it’s sole reason to be, please correct me if I’m mistaken here.

I’m not familiar with the details. The point is simply, don’t expect to get away with playing games.

Seems like the EU Safe Harbor Provisions, you basically must not incentivice illegal hosting, accept takedown requests, but also have some sort of procedure for the takedown requests. Which all seem quite easy to follow and adhere to and would function perfectly for Tenfingers IMO.

Yes, but there is more. The DSA is written in a very convoluted way, with the exceptions for smaller platforms scattered here and there. I don’t remember what exactly applies here. You may also have obligations under the DMA, CRA, and quite probably the GDPR.

Tja. Übel. Es läuft ziemlich grundsätzlich falsch.

This is a US patent; not directly relevant to Japanese operations.

Yes, absolutely. And there is money in patent trolling. I just don’t see the business case here. Why damage the Nintendo brand with such shenanigans when you could leave the patent trolling to some formally independent company. Maybe I just underestimate how much money can be made by shaking down small devs.

Depends on the jurisdiction. This is a conflict between freedom of speech and the reputation of the brand (which has financial value). Countries with a more recent monarchical past tend to value reputation over free speech, eg Japan but also Europe. The US has been a republic for a quarter millennium. Since MS is a US company, I think they wouldn’t even pursue this in the first place.

Generally, service providers are exempt for liability for such things if they follow certain rules of conduct. EG the US DMCA says that you are not liable for copyright infringement, if you comply with takedown notices. I’m not sure how that works for trademarks in the US.

Generally, though, you should expect to be held responsible for any infringing content on your service, once you learn/are notified about it. You will be treated as if you had created the content yourself. That means that you will have to make the argument in court that the use of the trademark was legal. And if you lose, you will pay the damages.

Questions?

Maybe look up the story behind Tornado Cash.

EU law has liability exemption for hosters if they remove illegal content once notified (DSA Article 6). I think we still have to wait for more case law to know how that works with encryption. National law may still cause problems.

This patent could have a chilling effect, but there’s no way it would stand up in court. They can still use it as a bargaining chip. Court cases are expensive. And if you don’t have a legal department, they are also a personal drain. But that’s small fry. Financially, I don’t believe it makes sense for them to resort to criminality to get such a patent. Maybe they hope it will influence their court case in Japan against Palworld?

You have full control over a server on which you chose to run certain Software. But you feel you don’t have to comply with takedown requests because that’s just how the software works? That may work on indulgent parents but not in court. If you’re too technically inept to know how to comply, then you’re just not complying. End of story.

What did they tell him about how his father and uncle died?

Probably the truth, just like they told him the truth about vaccines.

Holy shit. I can’t believe that 65 people upvoted this. Do you really believe that’s how the world works? Are you actually adults?

Yesterday, the police opened fire at the protesters and killed 19 people.

Today, the latest official numbers from the government speak of 30 dead and over 1000 injured treated in hospitals.

Light many lamps and gather round his bed.

Lend him your eyes, warm blood, and will to live.

Speak to him; rouse him; you may save him yet.

He’s young; he hated war; how should he die

When cruel old campaigners win safe through?

---

But death replied: “I choose him.” So he went,

And there was silence in the summer night;

Silence and safety; and the veils of sleep.

Then, far away, the thudding of the guns.

That’s why the protests started.

The imposition of the ban was discussed in this community. I agree that this is barely on topic but that’s precisely why it should be available here. So that people who are interested in social media bans but not in world news, can find the info in the same channels and put the FO to the FA.

It was signed by a number of people, including OG ActivityPub contributors. I guess you’d have to know what goes on in the mailing list.

Looking around here, there’s a lot of ignorant hostility. I am always surprised by how tech-illiterate fediverse fans are. People who feel that that’s their peer group probably have a hard time ignoring that background toxicity.

The statement has been… uh… updated. The URL now reads:

A statement was originally published here, however, we have since received an objections to its publication citing that proper processes were not followed, and therefore it has been taken down and republished on Emelia’s website instead, whilst we seek community group consensus. When Emelia merged the pull request, she had been granted permission to do so by the co-chair of the Social Web CG, and given the number of signatories with various significant contributions to ActivityPub and ActivityStreams, Emelia believed that there was enough agreement to publish.