Yeah free as in freedom not as in price.
The closest anyone's come to a mechanism that would allow efficient financing of public goods like free software is quadratic funding. Unfortunately, there are unsolved issues with collusion and identity verification
That makes the privacy issues with YouTube worse. They can link your YouTube watch history with your identity
To have some sort of viable fediverse alternative to YouTube, the developers of it would have to abandon some of the free software principles that current fediverse platforms uphold. There needs to be a way to monetize to attract creators and get people to host the servers
"Radical Markets" by Weyl and Posner.
As an anti-authoritarian anti-capitalist I find many of their proposals to be objectionable. I lean towards open borders simply on freedom of association grounds, so I am opposed to their immigration proposals. Their common ownership self-assessed tax on the other hand is very interesting because it allows collectivization of some of the returns to capital while still managing capital in a decentralized fashion.
What I meant was blacklisting certain destinations. It obviously wouldn't prevent all malicious traffic
Would it be possible to allow exit nodes to blacklist specific kinds of traffic and somehow privately verify that the traffic is not one of the blacklisted kinds (zero knowledge proof perhaps sorry not a CS person)?
End-to-end encryption is my favorite technology.
- Prevents those with power from spying on everyone and ossifying their power
- Protects communications from smaller scale malicious actors
The difference between something natural and artificial (man made) is that no one is responsible for the natural. People are responsible for producing the artificial. Animals, for example, are moral patients, so bear no responsibility for the results of their actions. That is why animals are a part of nature.
I would recommend reading David Ellerman to get more of this perspective. Here is a link to a text where he argues that the employment contract is illiberal, which means that it violates liberalism's fundamental principles, and the only kind of economy that is compatible with liberalism is an economic democracy where all firms are democratic: https://www.ellerman.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Article-from-ReclaimingLiberalismEbook.pdf
Capitalism has 3 main features:
- Private property (even in land)
- Employer-employee relationships
- Markets
Capitalism is misnamed. Early theorists mistakenly identified capital ownership as the root feature that gave the employer the right to the whole product that workers produce. The employment contract gives the employer the right to the whole product of the firm. Coops correct this. Power leads to employers typically being capital owners, which is why the misnomer stuck. @asklemmy
Not if you use anonymizing software