this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2025
51 points (100.0% liked)
Public resource but access restricted and exclusive
46 readers
2 users here now
This community tracks restricted access resources (generally websites) that are supposed to serve taxpayers and the general public, but they fail in that duty by imposing arbitrary restrictions on access. This is where we document these cases.
Most often, it is the Tor community who is marginalised by incompetantly implemented infosystems. This community will be mostly littered with references to tor-hostile public resources to a fatiquing extent, but this is expected. It is not necessarily limited to Tor. Any demographic of people who are refused service would have a relevant story here. E.g. someone traveling outside their country and being denied access to a homeland website on the basis of presumed IP geolocation.
This is very closely related to the !digi_fiefdom_required@lemmy.sdf.org community. But there are some nuanced differences. Not all fiefdoms are necessarily always restricted access. E.g. some rare Facebook pages are reachable to non-FB users.
And not all manifestations of restricted access entail a fiefdom. E.g. it’s increasingly common for a gov website to block Tor visitors at the firewall without involving a digital fiefdom.
Cases of Cloudflare, Facebook, LinkedIn and the like can be crossposted in many situations. They are a fiefdom walled garden and also commonly configured to restrict access. IDK.. use your best judgement. Might suffice to just post in !digi_fiefdom_required@lemmy.sdf.org in those cases.
Also related: !netneutrality@sopuli.xyz
Scope and rules:
What is not relevant here:
- NGOs
- non-profits
- anything in the private sector
This community is focused on tax-funded government programs and services like public education, social services, voter reg, courts, legal statutes, etc. NGOs and non-profits may exist for the pubic benefit, but if they are not funded by force (taxation) then they are not really relevant here.
Recommended style:
- the title should mention the jurisdiction (state/province and/or country)
founded 2 weeks ago
MODERATORS
You keep beating on this phrase because your zealotry has pushed you to a singular idea of what “support” means. Another word you might consider looking up in the dictionary.
They don’t support tor. They aren’t obligated to, morally nor legally. Any argument that they are is founded on zealotry and ignorance. If you feel undignified or a lack of respect because you can’t use your favorite browser, then you’re an idiot.
You’re just recycling defeated drivel. There are no new arguments here and unless you figure out how to attack the arguments that defeated yours, using sound logic, this drivel of personal attacks only exposes the weakness of your indefensible position further. Relying on rudimentary information sources like a general purpose dictionary is consistent with the lack of English nuance from which your misuse of terms and obtuse language manifests.
Your fixation on insults indicates no formal background in debate. You’ve used the most common logical fallacy (among others) while naming it to call out multiple situations where it did not apply. This shows you’ve picked up common buzz phrases without grasping them (implying ad hoc hot-headed cloud fights without basic formal debate training). In the very least you could benefit from studying logical fallacies and taking a debate class. But to be clear that will only improve the quality of your dialog, it won’t compensate for the infosec deficit. In any case, none of that is going to happen in time for you to dig yourself out of your embarrassing position in this thread.
There haven’t been any new arguments for a while. You repeat the same junk about how you’re a victim because you’re not able to access the IRS in the fashion you zealously demand. You continue to be hilariously upset about getting called out on basic definitions. And you continue to talk about classes and school. I’m 100% certain you’re a child. Maybe fresh out of college.
Grow up.
Your continued failure to grasp the fact that the Tor community does not need server-side support is the main reason you have failed to understand why your main thesis has been defeated. Not understanding how Tor works to at least the most basic extent has ensured you’ve based everything in your position on misinformation (which most certainly comes from poor assumptions). Then you wonder why you think you see repititon as you repeat defeated claims because you don’t understand the facts that make your claims indefensible. Until you learn enough about To to realise there is no need for server-side support, you have no hope of even understanding the silly absurdity of your thesis.
What exactly do you think my thesis is?
What exactly do you think “support” entails?
It’s clear you lost the plot on the first question ages ago and you have a child’s perspective on the second.