If you can host your own instance, wouldn't that mean that you can upload whatever content you want? Right, left, libertarian, no-politic, etc...?

Though if it doesnt federate is better to stick with lemmy though is strongly left leaning but is gettin quite diverse in all ways

Agree 100%, as a rule of thumb, if you agree on almost all that you see in your instance or with your peers, and you don't experience some level "being triggered" rest assured you are on an ecco chamber. But is true that sometimes you want some really specific content, that is when it is useful a non generalistic instance.

That name, that just made my day

Briar.

Yet another try of social engineering doomed to fail

"I'll wear them down."

Is there any alternatove protocol?

P2P social networks would be any good in that regard? 🤔

The "why?" Section is wrong, let me correct it

Why?

Because I can.

😂

Fun game!

Agree with that

You better argument is based in when the ancap term was coined? Also you seem kind of in foght or fly mode, man, you are not going to win amy aword figting on internet with a random guy, don't make this a homo sapiens version of two chimps throwing shit to each other.

400 years is plenty more than some red examples I must say, and with orders of magnitud less people to defend it, so that look like a overwelming succes for some pesants half starved.

The fact you read the article is something that kind of make up for the tribal defending you do of your believes, and even more if you have more questions now, would be far more productive and interesting if you just share them. In fact will be really interesting since your perspective will undoubtedly be different and so will do you questions.

Anyhow, I honestly enjoy a book recomendation despite the context, so 👍 tks.

Lol, the fun part is that I actually thought I was talking to someone who ise that fleshy blob of meat insode his head.

Go read human action before triying to battle it with a book with an oxymoron in the title. Is kind of pointless, you ignore the theorem of the imposibility of socialosm stated by Hayek, amd call it high scool level jajaja you are funny dude, please, never change xD

Really nice comment, mostly the last two paragraph.

Although in my experiences is the oposite with the "right-wing" of the subject, the more intellectual formation, deeper economic undertanding, more anarchist tend to be the people, and they also agree with what you said:

"That's because left-anarchism has more in common with capitalism than it has with communis"

I will add that from the ancap perspective, governament is not equal to state. A government is ok so far it is accepted voluntarily, in contrast, the state is always imposed using violence.

Anarchist:

Cospaia city (now part of Italy), almost 400y of ANCAP organization, untill ot was anexed by Italy near the 1800s. One of the top tobacco producers of his time, and relatively more prosperous than all his neibours.

Not bad for a tiny city with a population of 300~600.

It even didn't have prision nor police, no cohertion was needed to bring it to existence, no war, a bit of good luck and one really bad surveyor mapping the land.

Cuba, Vietnam, China.. ther is a difference in being sucessfull and just "being" I won't say they are succesful now, and in the long run I believe they will end to exist, one or two generations after us probably.

https://mises.org/power-market/republic-cospaia-anarchist-renaissance-city

The base of capitalism is freedom of choice and assosiation, and you are literally posting on a platform that emerged out of people acting in freedom, that is capitalism too

We literally went from being hunted down by lions to conquer the world with a stone attached at the end of a stick, tell me about being unorepeared... people dont have an idea of how prepeared they are if they act in freedom

Really? Would that imply too much of code re-writing?

I'll take a look at the WebRTC thing, thanks

The whole study doesn't take into account individual preferences, it asumes that if someone has some amount of food/water/money/... etc is happy and ok, and then checks if that can be achived usin less than an arbitrary amount of energy.

Spoiler: people are different. Some would happily sacrifice any of the previously mentioned variables to achive something that they subjectively perceive as value.

Again, the fatal arrogance of believing that person "A" can know what is better for person "B", even better than "B" itself. Another wet dream from the mind of a social engeneer

Excellent

I wonder if that concept can be made in a distributed manner, like P2P

Nice!

Is really nice, I think it is a few featires away from compeating 1v1 with matrix (and XMPP? don't know, since I didn test it out jist yet)

Really nice stuff

Great!. It looks like it is really new and developing

Thanks!

I'll have to give it a try

I wonder how XMPP compares to Jami

Nice

I like how you think, but I don't really know where to start to do it myselfe, or the kind of skills I need to develop it

I understand your logic but if part of the mutual agreement is "I will ask you to do things and you will do it" that is a fair agreement if mutually choosen. Maybe a silly one but fair nonetheless, unther the logic we're talking about.

I don't have any complain into falling into capitalism, quite on the contray, and I wouldn say that is "unfair" the "adventage", just be a more required worker to balance things out or if you can cope with the challenge take the risk of being the provider of capital (either an employer or a member of a cooperative)

For personal use or trusted peers Syncthing is just AMAZING, and they keep adding new usefull features like encription for storage on non-trusted devices

Thanks for the info! I'll chek it out!

I was thinking about a bottorrent node on the tron network, is a decentraliced file storage sistem, never heard of Cubbit.

Item 1.2 you say capitalism can't provide what you want, then in item 1.3 you literaly describes the fundamentals of capitalism (individual and freedom of assosiation) , forget the widspread missunderstanding of capitalism, please.

2.3 "non-owned" on the contrary if you set it up as a common resoirced it will be over used and underprovided, is recommended to have even more property rights in a distributed manner (give it a look at "the tragedy of commons" if you whant more details). Suggestion, aim for a decentraliced-ISP model based on a reward sistem in wich you gain tockens by sharing resources (bandwith, storage, etc..) and to use the service you need to pay with that tocken, maybe a DAO (decentraliced autonomous organization) is a good example of the governance of such sistem.

2.4 I will ignore the communist connotatiom fo the term "control of means of productiom" but, paradoxically the more propertie rights you have (im the sense of more people owning a tiny fractiom of the resoirce needed to run such thing) the more control in the meams of production and since it theor property they have incentives to mantein it (unlyke the common resources), so again I would say, try to solve it with more ownership but a distrybuted one, and arramge the incentives towards that.

Another thing to consider in this item:

Why people would invest their hard earned resources into mantein the metwork, if 'other' will do it for them for free? Is not a trivial question (that logic aplies for all, so you get the idea).

Now what I really liked :D

That aside, I like the approach you propose, in item 3 I will say that in general is a good start for setting the bases of a distributed internet but, have in mind that often people, given the chance will choose a centralized and privative service just becaus it is convenient for them, and that is ok (for them) simply becaus people have different interest and priorities, and there is not much we can (nor have to) do in that regard.

At this moment a variety of implementation of decentraliced ISP for an intranet/internet are being develop (if you whant I can look up for the names of proyects), same goes for decentraliced apps, cryptocurrencies, etc... I really belive that main idea of what you say will be a necessity at some point, not just an option.

The incentives of themocracy are really poor, high time preference and the beliving that we can solve our problems at the expense of others, plus is a sistem that imposes what the mayority whants (and nothing prevents the mayority from wanting terrible things)

Item 1.2 you say capitalism can't provide what you want, then in item 1.3 you literaly describes the fundamentals of capitalism (individual and freedom of assosiation) , forget the widspread missunderstanding of capitalism, please.

2.3 "non-owned" on the contrary if you set it up as a common resoirced it will be over used and underprovided, is recommended to have even more property rights in a distributed manner (give it a look at "the tragedy of commons" if you whant more details). Suggestion, aim for a decentraliced-ISP model based on a reward sistem in wich you gain tockens by sharing resources (bandwith, storage, etc..) and to use the service you need to pay with that tocken, maybe a DAO (decentraliced autonomous organization) is a good example of the governance of such sistem.

2.4 I will ignore the communist connotatiom fo the term "control of means of productiom" but, paradoxically the more propertie rights you have (im the sense of more people owning a tiny fractiom of the resoirce needed to run such thing) the more control in the meams of production and since it theor property they have incentives to mantein it (unlyke the common resources), so again I would say, try to solve it with more ownership but a distrybuted one, and arramge the incentives towards that.

Another thing to consider in this item:

Why people would invest their hard earned resources into mantein the metwork, if 'other' will do it for them for free? Is not a trivial question (that logic aplies for all, so you get the idea).

Now what I really liked :D

That aside, I like the approach you propose, in item 3 I will say that in general is a good start for setting the bases of a distributed internet but, have in mind that often people, given the chance will choose a centralized and privative service just becaus it is convenient for them, and that is ok (for them) simply becaus people have different interest and priorities, and there is not much we can (nor have to) do in that regard.

At this moment a variety of implementation of decentraliced ISP for an intranet/internet are being develop (if you whant I can look up for the names of proyects), same goes for decentraliced apps, cryptocurrencies, etc... I really belive that main idea of what you say will be a necessity at some point, not just an option.

Finally, someone that is smatr enought to not expect for the government to solve his problems, instead the site foster individual actions and the "start at home" approach. The hard and ugly truth, if you whant to something really change don't expect to be confortable, fast nor convenient. That is why people don't like this types of approaches and I can't blame them really.

Why do you say the workplace is not a personal possession, it is the owner's of the business possetion, isn't it?

I'm suprised that agree on the most part (1st part) with Chomsky, an glad to hear he talks about Hume and Adam Smith, but a bit confused when he say that authority in the work place (his example) is illlegitimate.

Why authorithy in a voluntary agreement would be illegitimate?

For example if I visit your house is implicit that you set the rules there you are the authority, and most people will agree on that but if you call that same home (the same building) a workplace then suddently tha same logic doesn't aply anymore?

Which instance do you host? I mean, in which platform?

So, you mean that don't "gladly recieve" that kind of user but you don't ban them from using lemmy from their own instance, and even of you wantted to, you can't.

That sound really healthy in a broad sense , I mean for everyone even of it sound counterintuitive. For a moment I thought you can ban people from using Lemmy in general (not only from using your instance).

I think that FOSS in general has a good chance in the long run, and non-algoritmic feeds probably will help so low down the polarization or at least won't make ot wors (I hope).