Donn

u/ItJustDonn@slrpnk.net
3 posts · 48 comments

Recent posts

Recent comments

that's what i figured. i guess what i wondered is if users are able to revoke their willingness to (potentially) store something unsavory post facto and/or if the content link was shared to block prescriptively.

if i only wanted dog pictures on my computer and blocked any cat picture content i came across (for example), could that block all future attempts to store a portion of any content i chose to block, as long as the key/hash matched?

hypothetically, that aproach could narrow it down to where if virtually all people chose to block a file, it might stop circulating and only exist on a single person's hard drive. i realize, though, that it wouldn't take much to alter a file slightly and alter its hash therein

the fediverse allows defederation, and i'm wondering if there's a way that users can block content despite a collective persistence of it.

if user A circulates cat pictures, user B circulates dog pictures, and user C circulates both, can user A block dog pictures from B and C, but still see user C's cat pictures? at that point it'd be up to the users/collectives to provide insight as to what addresses deal in unsavory content and helm each other block/filter, which comes back around like defederation.

that doesn't guarantee creeps won't circulate creep content. but i think the solution lies in community action anyway, both in helping prevent people from seeing things they wish they didn't, and in apprehending offenders.

mine is not a super educated take, but it seems like it should be possible -- i'm hoping smarter nerds than i could answer!

i agree with you and stopped a few years ago for similar wariness

i also had a half-baked thought: there have been videos showing players using spoofed gps to play for years. how difficult would it be to spoof camera and gyros (earns you bonuses in-game to scan points of interest) in addition to gps, as a "catch your mons, give the ai bogus intel" sort of affair?

on Do we have a chance? · c/privacy · 2 pts · 73d

i think it will get better, but probably not before lobbyists make it worse first. i guess my question about it is: will i still be able to go to lemmy/mastodon/peertube along the way, and what would it take from the instance owner's part to keep governments from forcing users to relinquish IDs?

agreed, the "wealthy/successful people do x" mentality in this video is the problem. not every interaction has to be about gaining some pre-supposed upper hand or asserting that you're the main character!

ye olde

thanks for the reminder that the dreamcast is over 2 and a half decades old 🫠

never got to play the second but i liked the first one a lot as a kid and wished i had an extra mechanical arm

it's both if they have daddy's trust fund -- a rotten chicken laying rotten eggs. if they somehow started without being born into immense wealth, then they chose to step on everyone they could to ensure having power over others

on Depression self-help · c/funny · 4 pts · 273d

extra humorous if alchemy is only taken as a literal proto-chemistry, disregarding its symbolic roots as proto-psychology (i.e.a type of self-work therapy)