It’s both.
Which isn’t a bad thing if you view this as a global society with a global problem to solve.
In 500 years it won’t matter who gets credit.

If it does matter to you, you still have 10 years to get it done. So get started.

Absolutely

And I love that a few people have learned this about me.
One even once told me “Long enough for your earbuds.” It was the best answer I’d ever gotten to that question.

Yes that’s all true. But it’s a seperate problem that’s happening anyway, 230 or otherwise.

I don’t know it for a fact, I just know it’s true, that Google collects and logs every byte of data that goes through its servers.

I never mentioned repeal and replace.
As I said, don’t repeal it, amend it.

Those who are harmed decide. 230 is about protecting companies from law suits filed by users.

The whole “end of free speech” issue comes not so much from the government sensor really (that’s still firmly restricted by the first amendment) but from companies themselves banning any content or accounts that might get them sued.

But if that risk is limited only to what they recommend outside a user’s direct boolean search and filters, they can still host content without concern. But they need to be sure they know and approve exactly what their algorithms are pushing onto people.

What crisis did capitalism have in the 60s & 70s?
I’ve never heard of that before.

As far as I know that was the best years this country has known. Top tax rates were ~90%. The middle class was larger and more prosperous than anytime before or since. We were making huge strides in science and tech, as well as social progress.

But the greedy NeoLiberals fealt that while things were good and getting better for almost everyone, they were being held back by all the taxes and regulations that helped the unworthy “poors” at their expense.

Section 230 doesn’t need to be repealed, it only needs to be amended.

It basically says that online platforms can’t be held liable for the content their users post.

However that was put in place before black box algorithms were put in charge of peoples feeds, and literally hacking our brains to keep us outraged, afraid, and engaged.

It needs to be amended to hold companies liable for content their algorithms recommend to people. It’s one thing to allow people to post whatever they want. That needs to preserved. But if a site "recommends " something that’s harmful, they should be held responsible for that recommendation.

Historically that’s all true, and good reason to keep an eye on them.

But Proton is very much different than all the previous companies in this space. They’re a non-VC funded private non-profit, with a board of trustees made up of scientists and engineers. The buisness model is funded by subscription, not ad sales. And by design, they themselves have no access to any of their users data.

With all that in place to prevent enshittification, I don’t realy see any rational reason for concern.

I recently discovered ReviOS. I just did a clean re-install of Windows with it. And its been great for the last few days. No dumb bloatware or spyware. Though not so privacy crazy as to break things. Supposedly it’s changes can’t be rolled back with updates due to the techniques they use. We’ll see

Not when it gives you a false sense of security.

I’m asking because you quoted a statement with the phrase hierarchy of kings. But I never used that phrase, so I’m not sure who you’re quoting.

I would say calling anarchy a Political System, is something like calling a blank canvas a painting.
Anarchy is the absence of a system. Once a system is in place, there’s no longer anarchy.

Who are you quoting?
Are you replying to the right comment?

Your privacy is compromised eithor way. That’s the point. You just don’t want it to be so obvious. Like putting a spare key under the welcome mat at your door, that’s a bad idea.

Because people don’t pay attention to signs.
You knowing people can easily see everything you’ve posted, effects your behavior here, far more than any banner you’d also complain about having to click past every time.

Yes. The later makes very clear to everyone, they don’t have any privacy here.
My point is, that’s a good thing.

Oh Wow! This is the first different one! I haven’t seen that since I sent a referral to someone.

In fact I might argue it’s not so much an ad in itself, but a request for you to send someone an ad. It works more like those reminders a lot of sites have. The ones that want you to complete setting up your profile. It’s more that kind of thing than an actual ad.

… Or maybe I clicked the “Don’t show this again” button. I don’t remember.

I’m assuming you’re referring to the US when you say “We literally live in a society governed by the whims most powerful people…” That part is true. But the most powerful people get there, largely by breaking the law, trusting it won’t be enforced; Even when it is, the punishment won’t really matter.

Rule of law got its beginning in the whims of kings deciding that everyone “beneath” them on the social hierarchy should follow their rule or be subject to punishment.

No actually. The “Rule of Law”, replaced the “Rule of The King”. Meaning instead of The King being the ultimate authority, The Law is ultimate authority. Prior to The Law, The King made rules, but those weren’t Laws. You may be making a bit of an equivocation fallacy here.

The rule of law is literally “might makes right”, you either listen to the authority of those at the top of the hierarchy or they will send the state dogs (the police) to force you into obedience.

No That’s the Rule of The King again.
The Rule of The King by the way, is the natural consequence of anarchy.

And none of what you wrote directly disagrees with what I wrote.
You think it does, due in part to the misconception or Rule and Law I just tried to explain.

As a finical instrument for investing it’s fine. Makes total sense to have some of your money in gold.
As you describe, being a part of a prepping plan for the end of the world. It’s really dumb, and a total scam.

Laws are a governments attempt to codify it’s peoples aggregate morality into something enforceable. Something more than just an individuals own judgement.

Without laws society would be governed by the whims of the most powerful individuals. The existence of laws themselves, are a moral stance against Might Makes Right. So following the law is a moral rule, of it’s own.

Stealing (taking something that doesn’t belong to you) is immoral. So is failing to give something you don’t need, to someone who will die without it. The times when moral rules come into conflict, are exactly the moments I’m talking about when I say “Don’t let your morality get in the way of doing what’s right.” You can’t follow two contradictory rules. So you have to choose what action, in that individual moment, will lead to the best outcome.