top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 65 points 3 months ago* (32 children)

So, lemmy would be illegal under this vision?

an EU-wide approach may be more practical to implement

If you want to do this, do it to yourself. Keep me out of it.

  • source
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Greece would essentially have to wall themselves off from every country that doesn't...

    So if an instance was hosted in Greece, and this actually happens...

    Yeah, it would effect that instance.

    It seems like you just quoted a tiny bit of the sentence so it would seem like a possibility tho...

    Critics highlight the technical complexity of the issue and suggest that an EU-wide approach may be more practical to implement. Meanwhile, the EU governments which consider such a measure will also need to address potential freedom of speech concerns – as digital rights campaigners have warned for years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I quoted it because I have a problem with it and it wasn't the main thing. Who in their right mind would even suggest this?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    Because as a complete thought it clearly means:

    For X to work we'd have to d Y, which has even less chances of happening.

    And you picked out "we'd have to do Y" and presented that like it's a plan anyone is proposing and not an example of how impossible it would be...

    But I don't think any of that is going to help

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (30 replies)
    [–] 30 points 3 months ago* (5 children)

    Google, Youtube and Facebook all forced real usernames for a time and it made no difference to the quality of conversation or how toxic it was. Indeed many people on Twitter/X use their real names and say some truly awful things.

    Its not about anonymity, the real answer to getting less toxicity is good moderators that care about the subject matter. Its why Reddit is a mixed bag depending on the sub you are in, all depends on the moderators. If you want to fix social medias toxic name calling and everything else you should be forcing Facebook et el to have enough moderators to actually do the job well with interest in the various sub topics.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    Google, Youtube and Facebook all forced real usernames for a time

    They did? Haven't created a Google accouts in years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    At one point after Google bought YouTube, I signed into YT and was horrified to find that my username was replaced with my real name. I hadn’t been asked or alerted to a change, it was rolled out silently. I changed it back immediately, because holy shit that’s invasive. But yes, Google/YouTube forced real names (at least at that point in time.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 29 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    Welcome to TOR and I2P, ανώνυμοι. Also, you might try wireless mesh networks.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    I'm kinda hoping a more mainstream darknet will appear. Basically like the role VPN providers have now but more .onion like. It's basically what common people use for stuff that's slightly at odds with the law but not too terrible. Like pirate bay. Soon adult sites and social media will fall in this category too if you desire anonymity.

    Tor and I2P are too dark for the regular person to go to for their social media just because they want anonymity. There's too much really nasty stuff there. The kind of crime that actually harms real people, not some rich shareholders.

    The problem of how to create anonymity even when the law forbids it, while still pushing back against the real crimes is a difficult one.

    Basically I want my 2002 internet back but how?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Tor and I2P are too dark for the regular person to go to for their social media just because they want anonymity. There's too much really nasty stuff there. The kind of crime that actually harms real people, not some rich shareholders.

    Uhm, no? You still have to actively search for and visit those sites, you don't just open tor browser and randomly land on dread

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    No but it's the association that makes you suspicious, gets exit nodes banned and just gives it a bad reputation. That damages more mainstream initiatives because nobody wants to be known as promotor of the silk road and csam network.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    Tor is the only one that has that type of association because it's the biggest, so it always gets mentioned in the media.

    Most people don't even know that there are other darknets like i2p.

    On top of that, current Tor actually has pretty good latency and connection speeds when not on a bridge. Last time I tried it out, I was getting 80Mbps up/down. Several users here even regularly or exclusively access lemmy with Tor.

    I think i2p should actually make an effort to promote higher base bandwidth sharing out of box because it scales easily since its completely decentralized and everyone is a node, unlike Tor. It could easily become more user friendly if nodes weren't starting off at like 128kbps speeds.

    Plus like the other reply mentioned, you have to go out of your way to find the criminal stuff on darknets. Most users would probably be accessing clearnet stuff anyway, and .onion addresses on clearnet sites that have dedicated onion addresses like duckduckgo or some social media platforms.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    As usual with Greek lawmaking, this is more a tactic to scare people and to use as a sledgehammer when the state wants to, rather than some grand scheme to force the population en masse to de-anonymize themselves. You have got to understand that Greece is undergoing democratic backsliding and was never a very strong rule or law state to begin with. Laws in Greece tend to be super strict but loosely enforced, which basically means the establishment, the police, the courts, can use them to throw the book at whomever they deem too dangerous. The Greek state is structurally incapable of being an actual totalitarian apparatus, but can be an effective authoritarian one when it needs to.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    How, exactly, would they do that?

    I'm sure they can force the big ones, like Facebook, but how on earth are you going to force all websites world wide for this?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    again fellow humans. its why I 100% put all my real life information in my profile. its important to lay it all out there and be truthful as sincere beings of earth.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago*

    Back in the early 2000s, when the web was still somewhat safe, I used to post comments on a news site using my real name ... my reasoning being that if I was posting my opinion on something I should have the balls to use my rn.

    Within about a year it started becoming more dangerous tho. I wasn't stalked but the responses became more personal and degrading, and the misogynists began showing up in force.

    I get why Greece would want to do this, but as of right now it would be better if they made some hard rules for Meta et al to follow - with massive fines attached for being lax.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    The beginning of mass surveillance...

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›