Richard Stallman had a dream where you control your computing. And XMPP is the closest social network in line with Richard Stallman’s vision of the internet. This instant message protocol, allows for you to easily host your own server, it’s fast and efficient, and has lots of different open source clients to choose from. Additionally, by making it extensible, it allows for anyone to build upon it to get their own desired features. This article goes over some of the basics of XMPP: https://simplifiedprivacy.com/xmpp-decentralized-signal-get-your-own-social-network/
Note: There are no affiliate links or sales text in this educational article discussing open source. Let’s discuss the technology and not attack the author.
Is he a robot? This iseems like a very strange thing to have to explain to a grown-ass man.
Probably just autistic, I mean as far as I know he hasn’t been diagnosed but he’s checking a lot of the boxes. And the way he views the world and basing conclusions on those views make sense to me in that context.
He’s just more rigid and extreme in approaching the world from that frame of mind than most people are. Thus sometimes leading to “bad” takes where his intentions are probably not terrible in the way people think they are.
How was he supposed to know, if no one ever told him? They didn’t teach about child porn when I was in school, and Stallman is older than me.
Gosh, how would someone ever figure out child abuse is a bad thing?
We are discussing the porn itself, not what happened in the process of making it. If it were illegal to possess a video because it depicts a crime, then it would also be illegal to possess a video of police murdering innocent people, and we definitely don’t want to go there.
for observers: please don’t essentially argue possession of child sex abuse material should be legal because otherwise the standard is set for making videos of police committing crimes illegal
This is an extremely weird comment to make. Are you implying that sexual abuse being wrong needs to be taught explicitly ?