And how would you do that without dystopian verification checks?

The reasons why Youtube and Discord are so gung ho on age verification might be because these companies that sell ads and data have a monetary incentive for distinguishing humans from bots for their investors and shareholders.

If I were to chose I'd rather have a bot infested internet than a mass surveillance dystopia.

I don't like that aspect of OCI containers. You shouldn't be running or building on top of random images made by unknowns.

Convenience beats security every time.

I hear you but if you think about it who else has an incentive and skills to create something like Nostr? Who are the people interested in free speech, signatures and decentralization and with the skills to pull it up?

And since you mentioned primarily Bitcoin users those are the crypto folks that seem to be very against the idea of tokenizing everything.

From what I understand by posting something on Nostr you are posting signed events to a list of dumb relays. These events can be of many types and include hints of discoverability. There is no blockchain and no token and the thing they call zap is just a link to a lightning address that is up to the client to show.

Your account is your key pair so you are not at the whims of a power tripping administrator.

It seems like the perfect nesting ground for non corporate user content and pocket islands of communities. Nothing prevents someone from implementing a relay or community that bans any talk about Bitcoin or crypto. I for one would love to see closed content focused relays in Nostr.

> Your account is your key pair so you are not at the whims of a power tripping administrator.

But you are right back to the same UX issue that prevented crypto mass adoption, i.e. lose your keys, lose everything

Very few want to own that risk.

> Very few want to own that risk.

But they are all willing to own the risk of getting their hotmail/google/apple/meta account being disabled on a whim without explanation.

What risk? Billions of people use these services. Is your perspective on the risks really warranted, in those people's minds? I can tell you it's not in mine, I'm just not worried at all about losing my Google account, despite the stories that go around

You are a well behaved and compliant citizen that don't need something like a censorship resistant network. Just make sure to avoid using your accounts in a way these tech giants would disapprove of.

Google protects my data from my government more than most right now.

Depends on what you need it for. Love Mac minis but feature by feature the MS-R1 has more memory, ECC support and dual 10Gbe.

Agreed. I can definitely see the Minisforum being far more cost efficient if you're mostly doing high speed networking transfers, while the Mac is more cost efficient if you need more raw power.

The ECC is cool. I don't need that for homelab servers though. But it's good to know and Minisforum is certainly a great offering.

Most likely not. This CPU has 3 types of cores. Heterogenous core is still a work in progress in FreeBSD and AFAIK they are targeting the Intel implementation first.

Seems its just another country coming up with the same convenient excuse to implement KYC to access the internet.

Isn't this the company that NVIDIA is proudly partnering with?

I have some feedback for OP: my personal website got 92% because there is a link to my X profile in the contact session. It's not like it relies on the service. Its just a contact and there are also links to other services such as self hosted matrix.

On the other hand my registrar is Namecheap which is in the US and your tool didn't checked for that. I think thats a lot more important in terms of dependance than a link to a social network so you could run a whois lookup to check what registrar is hosting that domain.

Good point regarding registrar. Thinking a bit further, there's also the top-level domain: if that's under US control (eg .com), it could still be yanked away from you.

This is a massive risk that will affect half the internet or so.

.onion might be exempt but while the TLD "." is anycast worldwide for the actual DNS service, Verisign still signs the cert. Isn't that a show-stopper for dependencies on dns-over-https or https altogether or do .cn, .ru, .ir etc all add/replace with their own independent signatures ?

1. Link to X profile ≠ dependency on X. Will differentiate links from embeds in v0.2.

2. Registrar check is a good thinking. Already have some stubs in the codebase. Namecheap is US and could theoretically be compelled. Adding to roadmap.

Thanks!

If you post on X. You are a content creator supporting Elon.

While this is true, it has nothing to do with the tech sovereignty of the site itself.

While I'd say you're mostly correct, I do disagree some.

There is quite a large issue with sites posting things like current events on social sites like Facebook, or other rapid news events on X. Doing this has the potential to diminish your sovereignty. For example if you tell your users to follow X on the site and you're posting some event that Musk doesn't like, maybe you're posts will disappear.

Is something to think about.

>internal "purity purges"

"Hey France, I know all of a sudden Germany is suddenly running around with black white and red flag, but it's completely cool if we have them manage all of our critical infrastructure". --carlosjobim 1937

I'm in the US. I'm watching what's going on here. If you want to talk about any group doing purity purges, they have ICE printed in big letters on their jackets.

Of course feel free to pull an IBM in the 40's and stick with the regime, it evidently has no long term business repercussions.

Sometimes, just sometimes there are evil people out there that you don't want to associate with. Other times, if evil isn't an issue for you, that said evil entity represents a business continuity risk by using their services.

It's up to you to decide those risks, but it seems rather 'anti-free speech' to say that I can't recommend that you think about those risks in the first place. By use of this service you are not purging anyone. You are enlightening your current position and using that information to make next steps.

Linking to the Facebook page of a small business is considered stepping over the line by this so called "sovereignty audit" tool. Sure, we can call that "associating with evil people". I say it's a cultish purity purge - a recipe for failure for those who participate. Because very quickly they start looking for impurities with each other and fragmentize into different sects.

I think this may reflect more on how you see things then the other people you supposedly talk about.

I think companies should just allocate raw computing and put agnostic stacks on top of it instead of using whatever shinny serverless G-Azurezon Serverless Function Lambda Cloud with NOTREDIS CACHE and LOCAL FLAVOR OF KUBERNETES plus the new OTEL-BUT-INVENTED-HERE monitoring solution.

I'm absolutely against banning usage of computer programs and platforms BUT I would rally for getting Teams banned from the face of the earth and applying a law to prevent Microsoft to attempt to create or acquire any kind of communicator for the next 50 years.