there is no soldiertariat. the person who joins the USian military is typically white, welloff and ideologically aligned with imperialism. they joined because they could and they wanted to. the military is the vanguard party of fascism.

i have been unironically told by someone who refused to install an adblocker: ‘what if i might get an ad for something i want?’

europe.pub is a nazi bar

it’s breadtube, but Andrewism is still the first online source i’ve found to define ‘authority’ the way i and meatspace comrades have used it:

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/andrewism-how-anarchy-works#toc2 (~5 minutes to read)

he references Bakunin, with some generative critique.

i am happy that you exist and i envy your clients 💙

but you are technically coercing them into compliance if they’re going to be removed from a project, relationship, etc.

this is an ongoing discussion within anarchism.

ideally, removing someone who wants to remain should be the last resort of a group. ideally, someone would not get to this point unless everyone else in the group (at some point) wanted them there.

this is where relationship anarchy and restorative and transformative justice come into play:

• avoiding situations where people feel trapped in a social situation, and
• promoting confrontation, dialogue and active listening when people are uncomfortable.

for disclosure: i’m not for relationship anarchy, but i’m not against it, either.

where you defer to someone else for their expertise because maybe they’re the only doctor available who can treat your illness, so you need to do as they say to get better.

you have the right word for it: expertise (see my other comment).

it becomes a hierarchy if the doctor involuntarily hospitalises you or uses the courts to force you to undergo the treatment; the power (force) to do that is authority. so long as you still have the power to challenge or otherwise discuss the prognosis, it is not a hierarchy, especially if the treatment is gratis and libre.

Expertise merely refers to one’s knowledge or skill in a particular field, but my understanding of CPR or ability to bake shortbread cookies does not make me an authority over you. Other than the conflation of force and authority, this is one of the most common confusions people have about anarchism, made worse by the fact that there are some anarchists who still use authority to refer to both command and expertise just because Bakunin did. Personally, I find that creates needless confusion. If you’re using the word authority to describe everything from slavery to knowing how to build a bridge, then why use the word at all? Just use the word expertise when you’re talking about expertise. Listening to medical advice isn’t a hierarchy. Having expertise doesn’t give me the right to command you unless I hold a position in a hierarchical power structure that grants me that authority. As Bakunin himself said:

…we ask nothing better than to see men endowed with great knowledge, great experience, great minds, and, above all, great hearts, exert over us a natural and legitimate influence, freely accepted and never imposed in the name of any official authority whatsoever, celestial or terrestrial.

— Andrewism, How Anarchy Works » Dissecting Authority (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrTzjaXskUU)

a hierarchy (from Greek, for ‘rule of priests’) is a structure which creatures superiors and subordinates.

Like if I invite a bunch of friends over to help me move into a new apartment, is there a hierarchy because I’m telling everyone where to put the boxes?

if your friends want to help you, then they’re helping you. they of course needs to defer to you for instructions, because you’re the one who knows what you need help with. if they’re doing so without the guarantee/demand of anything in return (because they care about you), then this is mutual aid.

Just when will my human rights, which are grounded in the constitution

the US constitution is an ideological rag and a liberal holy text written by and for wealthy protocapitalists seeking independence from mercantilism. it wasn’t written for you, just as it wasn’t written for women or BIPOC. the police and courts serve the state, not persons.

I start with the assumption that the company wants to fire him so badly that they are ready to pay “over $21,000” (have you read the article?) to do that.

you mean this line?:

A Florida nurse named Kerry Campbell launched a GoFundMe campaign to cover James’s legal fees and basic needs. It’s raised over $21,000 so far […]

besides the misquote: corporations are quite infamous for the lengths they’re willing to go to to avoid social responsibility. in this case, they quite literally outsourced ‘this hassle’ to the police.

I’m not American, your insults don’t work on me.

neither am i, and from this comment i get the impression you’re a European chauvinist.

it’s not an ‘insult’; you need to look in a mirror.

you start from the assumption that the company had a legitimate reason to want to fire him from day one because of his disability.

the problem might be not an “apple per day” the kid was eating, but the “special needs” kid himself.

why is special needs in scarequotes?

They might be forced (by some company policy or something) to hire him

are people with disabilities not allowed an income? if we’re going to force people to work, then companies should be forced to hire. people gotta eat.

from your other comment:

They just waited for the sum to be big enough for the police to act.

claiming a person who took a nibble/day from the deli over the course of 3 months ‘stole $110 of food’ is some mental gymnastics. a corporation sicced violent goons on him and gave him a criminal record for what is probably pocket change from the perspective of their accounts after management deliberately avoided interventions in an effort to get him fired.

is there a point you’re trying to make? because your aloud-pondering comes off as ableist and almost ageist.

a digital wallet with ZKP could resolve ‘are you old enough?’ without the query ever needing to leave your device.

without a digital wallet, it could be done with fully homomorphic encryption.

both of these would be innovations which i feel require guided development. innovation counter to the goal of the legislation, which is surveillance. innovation driven by the self-proclaimed purpose of ‘protecting children’; innovation driven by the impetus to make it harder for people to masturbate.

since the general attitude right now has been ‘require agegates and just leave it up to The Market™’, then the solution in practise will probably be a private third party that brokers this information, probably with a natural monopoly, that will charge exorbitantly for their API, have Google Analytics running on every page, leaks like a sieve, leaves logs everywhere, and will probably get caught selling data, which will incur a one-time fee equal to 80% the size of the company’s rainy day fund, and maybe the CEO will be asked to step down, shielding the rest of the C-suite from consequences (and allowing them to just do it again). they’ll work closely with law enforcement, they’ll be breached in the first year, and probably have a huge leak 4 years later.

in that time, due to real changes in the law or jurisprudence, or companies just ‘playing it safe’, age verification will come to encompass queer identity, sexual education and health, war coverage, counterculture and even history. more online regulation just means more barriers to entry which means a larger monopoly for multinational corporations.

i think there are better uses for this technology than controlling pornography.

the provider knows who’s asking because of the IP address and API key of the requester. if it uses a form with a redirect, they even know your IP and what page you were on, tied to your legal identity. if the provider makes any API requests to a government registry, now that knows the when, the how, and (categorically) the what. short of a statement of ‘no logs’ and an audit to confirm as such, there is definitely logs. hackers love this information. data brokers love this information.

the problem is not the service knowing. it’s anyone knowing. the provider deänonymised you the moment you gave your id. the precise implementation details are important here.

the problem is that people are being verifiably linked to their ‘adult’ preferences. this is data that is being generated, in bad faith, and handled by multiple parties. your legal identity should not need to be tied to this information. this information can be used against you both now and in the future.

we’ve already seen in the US where there is a push for information about gender and basic sexual education being labelled as ‘adult’. when i was in school, information about countries like Cuba, Afghanistan or China was considered ‘too mature’ (or marked as ‘terrorism-related’ by the school firewall) for children; i could see this thus extending to require age verification before you can access ‘subversive’ information, on the basis of ‘protecting children’ from ‘political extremism’.

i believe the artist is asmallredboy (Bigbluewoman@reddit)

But at the same time, you still post to !gunners@lemmy.world

Dbzer0 was selected as the main non-ml community 7 months ago in this thread: https://lazysoci.al/post/21253059

‘some people made a collective decision (that didn’t involve you) that everyone should move to my preferred forum, and here you are!’

i will mirror something from the feedback thread and say i like everything here except specifically the facemelting datamoshes and stuff like this.

seems adversarial to [dbzer0] values

this is an anarchist/GLOSS/pirate instance; freedom of information is tied closely with anarchism and the hacker ethic.

for me: it’s less about whether this type of information should exist (it shouldn’t) and more that i reject privileged information conceptually. i don’t think this type of information should just be available to admins and people with the technical resources and expertise.

i would prefer (in my uneducated opinion) that this information only be visible to the user (on their own posts), community moderators (in their own communities) and admins (on the voter’s home instance), and anonymised elsewhere (for example, only showing a source instance).

but since that is not how it works, then i would rather have access to the same level of information that anyone else has over me. i also feel more in control of my own data when i have access to my own voting history. thus, i think that’s why there’s a sentiment that there is a different approach to this problem, and it won’t end with just blocking one tool.

‘‘effective’ ‘altruism’’