skells @skells@social.cleverlibre.org

@freemo @trinsec
I can dig it

@trinsec @freemo meant to post this as a reply to your earlier toots - the vagaries of mastodon still elude me....

@trinsec @freemo

I wouldn't say that "there are only two sexes" is nonsense. That there are two poles, masculine and feminine, with varying shades of sexuality and physicality in between, seems a fair way to put it. This is the perspective I hold.

If people want to move outside that, fair enough, don't think it's realistic to assume that everyone can or should educate themselves on every way of life that people might choose.

Trinsec, I see where you're coming from, although I think many people hold reasonable common sense notions regarding sexuality. I don't think it's fair to categorise people who tend towards natural gender roles as uneducated (not including bigots who want to hate on anything they don't understand.)

imagine being short GME when you could be long BTC

@RobertCardwell @icedquinn @Hyolobrika @meowski @tightnessofcars @p don't worry about it mate, only teasing

@RobertCardwell @icedquinn @Hyolobrika @meowski @tightnessofcars @p
t̶o̶o̶ ̶e̶d̶g̶y̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶b̶t̶c̶
too edgy for financial matters

my bad dude

@RobertCardwell @icedquinn @Hyolobrika @meowski @tightnessofcars @p I can think of a few reasons to not back bitcoin but "I'm edgier than you" is hands down the most entertaining

@valleyforge fuck dalton.

@FailForward @academicalnerd @mathias will check out deltachat when I get some time.

An angle that gets missed with the "don't worry unless it's politically sensitive" approach is that state actors at least, and large corporations at worst, get a free option on reading your data. Or to be more precise, they get a free option on *most* people's data while more privacy concerned folks have a more "hardened" chain of comms; this free option on comms for most people is a social engineers gold mine.

If you can measure it, you can control it. Now I don't believe that much social engineering goes into much more than getting people to spend money *most* of the time and that most of the evils of social media are byproducts of technological amplification of what makes humans tick.

But on balance of probability there are certain hot button political issues that social engineering might be used in earnest. If to 90% of the populations day to day chatter was accessible it would make it simple to measure what was on people's minds and, as I said, if you can measure it you can control it. the infamous "memory hole" might well operate on a similar principle.

Even if this sort of thing isn't done right now it's not a great tool to leave on the table. So while I'm big fan of privacy tech we still leave most of our societies open to this stuff, on the aggregate. Social media isn't going anywhere and people actually *want* to share this stuff, can't stop 'em and it is a big part of our lives now for better or worse.

In any case, a fairly standardised and easy to use decentralised messaging service would be a really strong medium/long term goal. Most people you talk to aren't happy about being listened to in private comms (everyone has a story about getting ads for stuff they spoke about in private) and would use a service if it was simple and easy to use.

TL;DR Using hardened comms for politically sensitive stuff is a good stopgap but we need to be more ambitious and inclusive to deny "soft surveillance" to would-be social engineers

P.S. you're all completely insane

For all the talk of tolerance and diversity conformity of thought is rigourously enforced in the mainstream.

It's only taken a few hours on Mastodon to appreciate once again how heterogeneous people's views really are.

@lunar

Bitcoin doesn't solve all the worlds problems - this isn't a reason to vilify those who see it as useful.

BTC uses the same energy we all do; if we were green Bitcoin would be too.

@Floppy @mathias @pettter

A healthy distrust of the information we are offered is important and the phrase "conspiracy theory" is often used to undermine that skepticism.

Cultures have many ways of reinforcing their perspectives, most of them unconscious. Journalism has its hand in this, as does a more networked society. We see less and less with our own eyes and rely more and more on the reports of others.

In order to be credible, this network needs a certain critical mass of practicing scientists/doctors/etc. within the community. Without this, such as in a poor neighborhood, what does one see?

State enforced curtailment of freedoms, accompanied by assurances of politicians who you feel have fucked you over time and again.

I would be more concerned by blind obedience than misinformed recalcitrance.