localhost_frssoft/ocappub
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://gitlab.com/spritely/ocappub.git synced 2024-11-22 13:13:01 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Changes and fixes thanks to various comments by momoninja

Browse Source 
Some of these are momoninja's suggestions verbatim, some are my own
changes.
This commit is contained in:
Christopher Lemmer Webber 2021-01-09 15:19:59 -05:00
parent 994577bdfd
commit 3a428ab920
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 4BC025925FF8F4D3
1 changed files with 11 additions and 11 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

22
README.org
View File

@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ not specified:
("Identity verification" is the same as "authentication", but since
"authentication" sounds confusingly too similar to "authorization",
we are not generally using that term in this document.)
Identify verification is important to verify "did this entity
Identity verification is important to verify "did this entity
really say this thing".[fn:did-you-say-it]
However, the community has mostly converged on using [[https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cavage-http-signatures-11][HTTP Signatures]]
to sign requests when delivering posts to other users.
@ -262,11 +262,11 @@ to listen to them, say that this is censorship.
Except that freedom of speech merely means that you have the freedom
to /exercise/ your speech, somewhere.
It does not mean that everyone has to listen to you.
You also have the right to call someone an asshole, or stop listening
You also have the right to call someone a jerk, or stop listening
to them.
There is no requirement to read every spam that crosses your email
inbox to preserve freedom of speech; neither is there a requirement to listen to
someone who is being an asshole.
inbox to preserve freedom of speech; neither is there a requirement to
listen to someone who is being a jerk.
The freedom to filter is the complement to freedom of speech.
This applies to both individuals and to communities.
@ -278,14 +278,14 @@ they don't like.
This is easily demonstrated; see how many people on the internet are
willing to threaten women and minorities who exercise the smallest
amount of autonomy, yet the moment that someone calls them out on
their /own/ bullshit, they cry censorship.
their /own/ garbage, they cry censorship.
Don't confuse an argument for "freeze peach" for an argument for
"free speech".
Still, what can we do?
Perhaps we cannot prevent assholes from joining the wider social
network... but maybe we can develop a system where we don't have to
hear them.
Perhaps we cannot prevent jerks and bigots from joining the wider
social network... but maybe we can develop a system where we don't
have to hear them.
** Did we borrow the wrong assumptions?
@ -718,8 +718,8 @@ or both stamps.
She might even decide to hand him the authority to send messages to
her in the future, for free.
But say Bob is a spammer and is sending a Viagra ad; Alice can keep
the stamps.
But say Bob is a spammer and is sending advertisement for illicit
pharmaceuticals; Alice can keep the stamps.
Now Bob has to "pay" Alice to be spammed (and depending on how we
decide to implement it, Alice might be able to keep this payment).
There is always a cost to unwanted messages, but in our current
@ -1376,7 +1376,7 @@ Lem really isn't sure, but insists that /he/ is not the one that did
it.
Alice trusts Lem enough as a person (but not as a person who
practices good security hygeine), and distrusts Mallet enough, that
practices good security hygiene), and distrusts Mallet enough, that
she finds this story plausible.
Still she considers with satisfaction that placing the blame "on the
capability she gave to Lem", whether or not it was Lem that did it,