Remind me, who owns WhatsApp?
I wasn’t sure if I should introduce such an extreme example as serial killers to my argument and now I see why.
So perhaps let’s talk abstractly:
- Some people are disruptive whether temporarily or permanently
- In some cases, we might need to keep those people away from others.
- If so, you need a place to keep them and,
- Someone to take them there and,
- Someone to make sure they don’t leave.
And it’s true that you don’t need police to investigate missing people. You didn’t answer my question though- in your ideal society, if not a police force, who does that job?
I agree that many crimes are only committed out of economic despair. Ideally, everybody has all the resources they need.
Are there not other reasons behind crimes?
For example, what do you do if a serial killer finds themselves in your society? Who would catch them and who would prosecute?
The police also handle other non-crime tasks such as finding missing people. Who would do that?
It may sound a little silly but when I get good feedback on something, I pop it in my journal under a specific tag so I can revisit it from time to time.
It’s unfortunate that people are unfair to you, possibly they are younger or otherwise have incorrect expectations about your fallibility as a human.
I used to respond to things like that but these days I let the positive comments speak for themselves. Just remember to ask for feedback- a lot of people otherwise won’t do it unless they’ve got something negative to say.
It’s preposterous but when it (hopefully) gets thrown out it’ll set a precedent that’ll defang these arbitration clauses in some way.
I guess I’m late to reading about this. As a 19 year old, he met a British 12 year old online, plied them with alcohol, raped them, pled guilty, and was punished for this.
What’s interesting is he was convicted in Britain, and then was sent to serve his sentence in the Netherlands. When he arrived, his sentence was reduced and the crime was changed because Dutch law didn’t recognise his crime as rape if force or violence wasn’t involved (they changed that this year).
Despite that I’m still astonished he was even considered to represent his country in this way. Even though the law and rules allowed it, surely common sense wouldn’t.
I would like to hear more about the move to Voat, what caused the failure in your opinion? I was not part of that as I had other things going on at the time.
Precisely, you don't have to be deeply technical to understand this, you just have to be willing to put in a little bit of work.
I also found it a little complex and daunting at first as it was my first contact with the fedirverse, and I've been on the internet since pretty much the start.
We'll make it a great place to be, and other people will see the benefits and put in the same work too.
Haha, that's a throwback to the days when I helped to manage a phpBB board and there were a few members that would just continuously get into arguments so I edited the database so both of them had each other on their block list. It was very telling when I discovered they unblocked each other a few weeks later and got back to arguing and derailing thread topics.
Furthermore it was quite computationally expensive. Modern CPUs have special instructions to work with AES and other algorithms, but back then it had to be done with individual instructions and with slow clock speeds.
More people = more problems I am certain but this is a social network and without people it will fail. We must all make an effort to be the change that we want to see in the world.
I don't foresee a problem in the immediate future aside from higher server load, but in terms of culture, only people who believe in a new social network will be willing to join.
In 5 years however when this is a great place to be, a large number of people will join who don't respect the legacy. The departure from Digg to Reddit felt like this too, I hope that the federation aspect will ensure this is longer lived.
What makes signal unsuitable? That’ll help spark some ideas.