killusall.jpg

Notices where this attachment appears

1. pistolero (p@fsebugoutzone.org)'s status on Monday, 05-Aug-2024 13:58:35 JST pistolero

   in reply to
   @frogzone @mischievoustomato @Hyperhidrosis @cvnt
   
   > when we get to the point where protocols will only accept messages as not spam if they come from datacenter based ip addresses
   
   No, that's not what Google's been doing, but IP addresses are completely independent of "datacenter" or "not datacenter".
   
   > i just see a much less distributed internet getting worse
   
   Do you seriously think that burning down a building full of computers
   
   > datacentars to me appear to be an integral part of the fascism and corporatism im seeing.
   
   This is like blaming garages for vehicular homicides: they are not related. You may have noticed that the people that commit vehicular homicide do so in a car, and most people that have cars also have places to put those cars, but the garages are completely unrelated to the issue.
   
   I'm not even sure how the association could be made between the San Francisco Data Cartel and a building full of server racks or BGP or the internet backbone unless you don't know how those things work.
   
   It is also not fascism. Here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/ , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriele_D%27Annunzio . Here is Orwell's essay, "What is Fascism?" https://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc . Exactly eighty years ago, before World War 2 was even over, Orwell was already complaining that people throw the term around and have no idea what it means. Or, you know, you could take Trotsky's approach and say "Anything that is not full communism will eventually turn into corporatist Bonapartist fascism if the ComIntern--which I happen to run--isn't put in charge of it immediately" or the careless version of Trotsky, which is "Everything I don't like is fascism." Always borderline-clairvoyant, in 1944 Orwell said that we're not going to get a definition of fascism:
   
   :orwell: "Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword."
   
   Eighty years. There are people that were born after it was written that have died of old age.
   
   > it wouldnt surprise me if they were the first things to get dismantled by conscientious resistors of fascism.
   
   Anyone attempting to resist "fascism" will have to route around any building that my computer is in:
   killusall.jpg