• @jwt@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 month ago

    (1) Agreed of course, but I don’t see much of an issue there. You try to get a 100% coverage on your blockade, but 99% will move twitter to compliance too. same goes for (2). As for (3), I’m not really sure why you directed that at me.

    • @iii@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I think it’s dangerous to be unscathed by governments deciding which publishers publish “truth”, and which don’t.

      To not care if the “law” applies to 100% of the population, or only 95%. Some more equal under the law than others.

      I bring up 3, because the idea behind www was to counteract the points above.

      Imagine the same techniques used by a government you do not agree with. It’s very scary, no?

      • @jwt@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 month ago

        That has nothing to do with what I was answering to OP (who seems to have a difficult time translating ‘operating in’ to ‘being reachable from’), I don’t know why you are trying to debate (?) me on something else completely. Same goes for the www, I’ve never called it that.

        • @iii@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 month ago

          I’m sorry your anger doesn’t allow you to see the connection between the technical implementation, and philosophy of www, and your own answer to OPs question.

          • @jwt@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            130 days ago

            I’m not angry, that’s in your mind. You seem to have a habit of linking things that shouldn’t be linked. Good day.