>you get to use a slightly worse form of Twitter

The protocol can support all sorts of other social networks. People are building things akin to instagram, tiktok, medium, allrecipies, etc

I'm building a place review system.

Is there an advantage to using this protocol instead of a more application–specific one? Perhaps the shared identity?

A few things. Shared identity is one of them. Another is that applications can understand each other's data and mix them together, if they wish, or keep them separate, if they wish. An instagram-like client can read the posts made by the microblogging client and re-use posts that include images, for example. Same goes with the social graph: re-use one from another application, or create your own.

Not true.

1. Plenty of living people defend the reputations of dead people.

2. There's no proof that anything we say or do has any impact on dead people.

Well, if you think of person as a bunch of ideas, maybe with a mind attached, then by attacking a dead person you're attacking a bunch of vulnerable ideas that no longer have a mind to defend them. You can still call it a person, if you like.

>You can still call it a person, if you like.

No thanks, because a person is not a group of ideas + a mind.

You didn't say what you mean, so I'll guess you mean souls, and you didn't say it because you're embarrassed.

Works fine for me with Firefox on Debian. Are you sure you don't have an extension breaking it?

Are ads a thing on meshtastic? If a node is spamming ads, would I have the ability to block it?

What about if you're walking or biking next to congested motorway and most of the vehicles have LiDAR running at the same time? That's a lot of photons.

Then maybe do something to reduce the causes if it? Recently, China has done more to reduce immigration to Europe than Europe has.

This concept is begging to be built on atproto or solid.

I was with you until your 3rd paragraph. Why are you carrying water for climate change accelerationists and racists?

The examples don't even make sense historically. Haven't you noticed that most governments are failing to decarbonize, and government force against citizens is usually against the left?

You don't have to be a racist to be accused of racism.

"said something racist" is what OP said

Indeed, but I inferred the meaning of "something racist [in the judgement of the authorities]".

Racists deserve free speech, and our society is better for it. When racists are silenced, anti-racists become complacent, stupid, and ironically, racist because they lose the ability to recognize racism.

Defend everyone's free speech. Don't require the necessity of unfair accusations. The destruction of people's lives over unfair accusations is simply a failure of due process and the desire of people to join a mob for safety. You should hate that no matter what you think about the right to free expression and belief. Anyone who would earnestly defend mob justice led by demagogues and supported by people afraid to be targeted next has a particular demagogue who they back.

> Racists deserve free speech, and our society is better for it.

To the extent that our society is better for extending free speech to racists it has nothing to do with them deserving anything, but with the costs of empowering any fallible human institution to deny anyone things that that particular group of people do not deserve, and the cost of failing to make that distinction is being susceptible to being convinced that some other group truly does not deserve it and therefore some institution should be empowered to identify members of that group and deny it to them.

Wild how you're weaving a tale about mob justice when someone says something against racists.

Also, it's logically incoherent how you're portraying mob justice as a bad thing while rejecting governmental regulation. The entire idea of the state having a monopoly on violence is to prevent mob justice, or individuals taking the law into their own hands. Basic civics.

I'm generally in favor of free speech, but there are thorny issues associated with it that "free speech absolutists" aren't interrogating because they stop at "racists should be able to say what they want".

There are a lot of definitions of what that entails. Some people have landed in hot water for making comments about what's happened in Gaza and accused of that.

Free speech is a circular right.

One is free to say racist things. Others are free to mock them in return.

Racists are not free from consequences. If they don't like others freely expressing themselves in return, at the rhetorical and emotional expense of the racist, racists can freely express themselves in their home.

You're advocating a very reductive approach to free speech.

Because in a free country you have the right to be a climate skeptic and a racist?

Being a racist is mostly useless and self-serving, but if you make any particular scientific position illegal, it's identical to having state defined science. That's how we got people passing bills to define pi and Lysenkoism. It's how we institutionalized chattel slavery and sometimes teaching black people to read punishable by death.

The goal of government isn't to promote your "correct" opinions. The goal of government should be summarize the beliefs of a fully-informed public in order to act on their behalf.

>The goal of government should be summarize the beliefs of a fully-informed public in order to act on their behalf.

I fully agree with your position here, but do you think the government has a roll in making sure the public is not misled or believes things that "experts" consider to be false? Do you think expert opinions should carry more weight that the average Joe?

I think my position is that the government is a tool we, the taxpayer, should use to investigate things and educate us of its findings. That this should be done in an open and transparent way so that we can trust the results. I don't think for profit companies should responsible for educating people. (sorry for the tangent)

It is the most unpopular speech which is at the greatest risk of being censored, and so there is it also the best place to hold the line on free speech. If you don't defend the right to say racist things, then you've already conceded the fight for free speech and are now just negotiating your surrender.

Again, missing my point.

I'm generally in favor of free speech, so your argument is not new to me. It's also not relevant to what I said, since you missed the point.

Also, you think racism is unpopular?

Racism will get you fired from virtually any company in America, thrown out of virtually any business or school, etc. If you don't think it's deeply unpopular then I don't know what to tell you. It is the speech which is closest to being outright banned everywhere. It already is in most developed countries, probably most of the developing ones too (at least on paper), America stands out as one place it remains technically legal even though it will get you blacklisted from almost everywhere. The only reason it's still legal here is because the first ammendment is unusually strong. Chip away at it, and I guarantee you'll lose more than you're bargaining for.

Racist thought and language is everywhere. People supporting racist institutions and language are everywhere.

These days, bigots are getting their teachers thrown out of school. It just happened at OU.

Universities are dropping DEI because Trump asked them to. Many companies are acting similarly, obviously in some sectors more than others.

Ask minorities if racism and other forms of bigotry are unpopular. You'll probably get a different perspective than the one you gave me. That is unless the only minority folks you know are Clarence Thomas and Vivek Ramaswamy.

The problem is in the definition. The British Government has accused Pro-Palestine protestors of it in the last few months.

That example supports my position.

The opinion that it is real is also not a fact. We're not talking about physical things. They're made up rules about made up things. It can all be different if we agree to make it so.

IP isn't a concept that has existed in all cultures for all time. It's not inherent to group dynamics or humanity. It's not even a concept that's fully respected by cultures that claim to care about it.

I'd push even further and say it encroaches, if not outright invades the conversation about who owns what data. Both are terribly muddy waters, to be sure, but something worth hashing out since we live in an age of information that is both accessible and under threat, so the real question is where do we want to collectively steer this ship?