285
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2025
285 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
74890 readers
1779 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
No, but if one brand of knife is used in the majority of a category of crimes, it's fair that the government should have a clear point of contact with the manufacturer to help identify why it's happening and how it can be prevented.
Realize this: The Nepalese government is being treated the same way as a "normal" person - they're having trouble prosecuting these crimes because they're not being given any access to hidden or deleted posts. They're having to go though the useless fake support chats and the like. What they're demanding, mostly, is that they have a known human being who will cooperate with the government and to whom they have a clear and unambiguous connection. Frankly speaking, I think that ought to be a bare-minimum for any company anywhere. I don't support corporate sovereignty or corporate personhood. If you have a company operating in a nation, that nation should always have a clear point of contact for law enforcement & taxation purposes, as well as more general communication when needed.
Yeah but all that crap you mention is for corporations, for agencies that extract value from a country thus the country wants to see some compensation for it. To my knowledge, I don't need no stinkin' legal office representation in a country if all I want is to exchange messages with someone there. That's what eg.: snail mail services are for. Otherwise it would literally kill the economical feasibility of any such kind of service (yeah, I know, that's the point).
Cooperate, or "cooperate"? Important distinction, in particular for small platforms.
See, half the entire point of the Fediverse is that it's not a company - heck, it's not even many companies! This is all about people using "snail mail BUT ON THE INTERNET" to speak to each other.
You as a person don't need direct representation, usually (though having a lawyer ready us always a benefit). The only way to stop the social media companies from extracting value and facilitating harmful criminal behavior is to stop their actions completely. Yes, that affects people. Yes, that means people won't be able to use an online service. But if all social media went away tomorrow, the only one I'd actually miss would be YouTube.
Fediverse instances have a different structure, and what should happen is that the owner of each instance that wants to operate in Nepal should register with the government, and only federate with those who are also registered. Otherwise, you've lost out on a country that barely us a blip on the Internet radar, with the exception of rich, entitled, jerks ruining Everest and adding to the colossal body count.
No matter what, it's not worth dying for. Protesting in favor of big companies is dumb from the start. Protesting in favor of niche platforms is dumb. Don't risk your life for anything but life-and-death situations.