No problem, it was not very clear

What you’re describing is absolutely not my thinking, I very much agree and in fact bring up myself often that collective action should be the norm. I just see politicians as part of this collective, and within the context of representative democracy where we currently live in, expected to be more aware of political context and meaningful action, because that’s literally their profession. Collective action should exist regardless and if needed “help” with the shortcomings of incompetent representatives, but in any case it invites to look closely at how well representatives are qualified, and motivated to do their jobs.

These kind of things show how detached politicians are from their actual job. Shouldn’t they be the FIRST to change, given that they’re the ones whose direct job is to protect our sovereignty?

No problem 😊 thanks again for explaining.

I mean canonical the word, not company? name.

And ok, interesting to know that PostmarketOS might be what’s closest to that.

Very interesting and informative, thanks for explaining. My understanding was that UT just conveniently copied/reused some hardware interfacing components from Android, since Android uses a Linux kernel too and why reinvent the wheel, especially with the plethora of phone manufacturers available, which you really don’t want to do again. But I didn’t know about it using Android kernel, or needing an existing Android install, which sound indeed problematic.

I still think that it is important to standarize a canonical Linux core, or something like that, that can unify more development efforts, or if not needed, at least a marketing presence to raise funds. E.g politicians usually don’t understand a word of tech, and you’d need something like “The open source interoperable alternative to Android and iOS” to be appealing instead of coming with Alpine, Debian, etc. which will sound just geeky and fringe and it will be confusing which to fund and why, and subsequently none will get any substantial funding.

What’s the pitch here? Initial impression is that it makes the ecosystem fragmented, as now (along with Ubuntu Touch), people have at least 3 different projects to fund. There needs to be a core standard that unifies the efforts and funding.

They need funding. Some people, countries and unions have an increased interest in tech independence.

Moribund politics is center, not left wing, which is seeing increases all across the west as well. Not as much as right wing, because it’s not well funded, but that’s not intrinsically necessary.

Yeah basically either the main stream parties become right wingers or are voted out. But also, why are voters so stupid to not see through this obvious trap. Essentially, it is the right wingers who are “flooding” their beloved “western civilization” with immigrants, for their short-sighted goals. The least the opposition can do is call this out crystal clear on a 10 minutes tact. Hate the immigrants, then hate what’s sending them, not poor displaced people that don’t even want to be here and politicians with little realistic options.

I think it’s pretty likely that this is part of the plan. Massive refugee waves will destabilize the EU just in the way they want. Either the EU goes full “don’t come here”, with walls, camps, deportation, etc. which will dwarf the current US immigration situation (thus improving their image), or they go “refugees welcome” again, which will skyrocket right wing parties. And not few mainstream politicians will be too intimidated or otherwise compromised to call it out, so the uniformed citizen will just see that somehow “it’s raining immigrants” again and “politicians are not doing enough”. Not unsolvable, but close to a checkmate.

Then they’re not truly democratic, which is a problem on its own

But what about porn / general nsfw, that doesn’t need a subscription and currently anyone can sign up / just visit those.

Not saying that these are not possibilities, but the technology itself and mistrust of government are, at least partly, different things. This is definitely a complex topic, spanning a lot of topics.

Yes, and governments, at least democratic ones, represent the interests of their people, so at least on paper this is the correct way to structure things. Then you use the channels to government to ensure it’s regulated properly. If this is not possible or there’s no trust, there’s a larger problem.

Okay, it’s 2 topics then, the privacy, and basically adding a mandatory authorization layer to the internet derived from your real identity.

To some extent this already exists for movies or say to buy alcohol, getting a driving license etc. in the real world, where people often also have to verify their age. So here it could be asked on what exact basis the internet should work differently.

That sounds great. I don’t follow the topic closely (probably I should), so wasn’t aware of these developments. This should be brought up in all discussions about age verification, so everyone knows there are better options.

Some people will feel that it’s not ideal, as you still have to trust the government, opposed to full anonymity, but that is a bit of a separate problem.

So there should be a rebuttal demanding a privacy respecting age verification token, instead of just arguing against age verification, which technically does have a point. This way it’s disabled as excuse to sneak in the other things.

I mean a dedicated, government issued age verification token that doesn’t reveal any data to the third party other than you are allowed access age wise.

Personal ids can also be used by non-owners, not much different than this theoretic age verification token. But yeah, ideally it would have a security layer to sufficiently confirm ownership.