• 7 Posts
  • 197 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 8th, 2023

help-circle


  • Again if you want to see it like that, fine. Doesn’t change the fact that people from these countries mean something different than you when they say inciting violence is outlawed. They are obviously referring to their specific laws, that use that specific language, in this case verbatim. The “oh but there are conditionals in that law” bit you are doing here isn’t the gotcha you seem to think it is. We are aware of that. And it’s not relevant to the original question of there being potential legal consequences for the people hosting the lemmy world instance. So what is even your point?



  • Look if you want to apply an overly broad definition of violent speech to score some weird semantic point, be my guest. But the original point upthread was that incitement to violence specifically, not “violent speech” in general, is outlawed in many countries, among them those that are hosting the .world instance. And that point is very much correct.

    Which is all beside my original point, which was that the §130 StGB does not work like you boldly claimed it does.









  • Of course, Alabama school, it’s entirely possible that the lesson was complete nonsense.

    Nah, from a solely US perspective it’s correct. There were ~1.6 million military casualties in the civil war, and ~1.07 million in WW2. But there were a few more parties involved in WW2, so it’s kind of weird to frame it as less bloody. If you include civilians, estimates range from 70 to 85 million dead worldwide (not including the >20 million wounded soldiers and unknown number of wounded civilians).






  • can’t see how this can possibly be a good thing, you know it will mean funding with conditions.

    Well, the things they are funding will get funded? How is that a bad thing?!

    The conditions range from very broad, like “fix bugs” (curl), over somewhat specific like “improve cross-platform compatibility and the Linux RNG” (Wireguard), to very specific like “create a test-suite and drive development on the Fediverse account migration functionality” (ActivityPub).

    You can see more for yourself at https://www.sovereign.tech/tech

    All of these seem to be rather tame conditions that are just there to ensure the funds get used in the way they were intended to be used. And I don’t really see how that gives the STF any sort of direct control over these projects, while it gives those projects resources to achieve more than they might have otherwise. There are no long-term funding models that would enable implicit control over these projects.


  • They could set up an account on one of the larger well established Canadian instances or even better start up their own.

    Both of these options have their pros and cons, and I think it is important to explain these well to the council if you want to have any hope of convincing them.

    A line of argument that has had some success in Europe is what has become known as “Digital Sovereignty”, basically a fancy term for saying government should control its own infrastructure. So you might want to sell it as an easy way to have a permanent archive of public communication and a method for it that is under their direct control, rather than as a way to find more engagement.

    As others have said self hosting has a maintenance and moderation overhead, but this can be lessened by running an instance together with other cities while still retaining most of the benefits of self hosting.

    Seeing from the linked cross-post that this is about Port Alberni, and considering that http://portalberni.ca/ returns an empty reply while https://portalberni.ca/ lets me know I have been geoblocked because I’m outside of Canada and the US, I’d say you have an uphill battle before you though. These people made a website (probably paid for it, too), and then killed much of its use by geoblocking most of the world.

    Good luck.


  • There is a blue van in the right lane,

    *car in front of a blue road sign

    at 270 km/h (168 MPH), he’s going to be right behind it in a second.

    The bollards on the right side of the road are at a distance of 50m from each other, by which we can estimate that the other car is at least 250 to 300 meters away. 270km/h equals 75m/s so they are about 4 seconds behind (if the other car was stationary).

    Therefore the lane is not – in fact – free.

    To answer this question it is much more important to know what is on the right lane next to or behind the car, which we do not see in this image anyway.