RedWizard [he/him, comrade/them]

Man, our enemies sure love keeping stuff underground.

“scrobbling”. Man, I thought that died alongside Digg.com

The issue is, however, the largest superpower is backing and supporting the actions of Israel in this regard. “The World” would have to label the United States as an active participant and begin the process of sanctioning and isolating the US. Either way, it wasn’t morals or ethics that ultimately led to turning on Nazi Germany. Before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the United States was very comfortable in keeping itself out of the conflict. At the time, Anti-Semitism was the soup du jour of domestic policy in Europe and America.

The Franks (of Anne Frank fame) attempted to immigrate into the US leading up to World War II, and despite Otto Frank’s connections within the American government, and his connections as a businessman, him and his family were deemed a “security risk” and denied entry. They were one family out of thousands who were turned away by FDR’s State Department. It was clear early on that the Third Reich was facilitating mass oppression against their Jewish population. The problem, ultimately, is that the prevailing opinions about the Jewish people were shared within the western powers. From an American perspective, what the Third Reich was doing with its Nuremberg laws wasn’t too far off from what America was doing with its Jim Crow laws, in fact, the Nuremberg Laws were heavily influenced by the Jim Crow laws of America. Meanwhile, European countries facilitated the emigration of Jews from their borders through the Third Reich’s first solution, which was relocating the Jewish people to “Israel”, of which they covered the majority of the costs to do so.

The United States didn’t enter into the war until after the attack on Pearl Harbor, which was a form of blowback resulting from the British and American embargo on oil heading to the Japanese Empire. Up to that point, the states had been operating Lend-Lease programs for weapons and supplying the Allied powers with material support in an attempt to allow them to deal with the Axis threat. There were great material interests in pushing the Third Reich back, as they had expansionist ambitions, ones that would see them control land and resources that the Allied forces had ready access to. Ambitions of conquest in Africa and Asia, as well as a colonization scheme into Russia. It wasn’t until April 1945 that the Dachau Concentration Camp was discovered and ultimately liberated. The idea that the Allied powers were fighting against the Third Reich on Moral and Ethical grounds rooted in the treatment of the Jews is very much a misunderstanding of the timeline of that war. The European front was effectively finished by May that same year.

So this idea that the world “can find it in themselves to have a single moral or ethic, and then act on it”, as if that was what happened in World War II, is idealism, and a revisionist view of the events of that war. I do not see this conflict playing out as the way you imagine it.

I hate to break it to you, but the people who were told “don’t invade Poland” were eventually exfiltrated into the “international community” at large.

I’m sure America has nothing to do with that. I’m sure America would just sit back and let weapons be delivered into Gaza or Lebanon without reprisal.

I used to be a heavy Tasker user. I think I hit a wall with building more complex rules using their interface, which made me stop using it. Maybe they have a way to just write a script instead now, but I haven’t looked into it.

Powershell, yeah I said it!

LogSec is really nice and flexible.

Clearly this is an act of a truly crooked and evil supreme court subverting the will of the people. This kind of thing would never happen in the good old USA. /s

Lol Aw, are the geopolitics to complicated for you? At least your comments are here to show how you really feel about democracy.

I’m a big supporter of Ukraine. But this is not that.

I see your colors. Ukraine, historically, undemocratic due to western interference. Made the Communist Party illegal and disbanded it. Very good democracy there.

They are very much the same, except Venezuela is better at defending itself from said western interference.

You are the one who lacks focus. This chain stared from this comment:

blocks appear to be part of a crackdown on internal dissent in both countries.

Or… you know… at least for Venezuela, the USA constantly fucking around with their elections and politics and local assets using Signal or something. Maybe, I dunno?

Do nation states have the right to defend themselves from foreign interference in their elections? What actions should a nation state take to ensure the security of its elections? What actions should a nation state take to combat misinformation spreading about their elections?

Based on your previous comments it sounds like you believe a nation should do nothing.

When preserving “democracy” is the excuse to not be Democratic, something is wrong.

Ah there it is. Its only Democracy if it comes from the democracy region of the west. Got it. Venezuela has one of the most robust voting systems in the world. Requires voter finger prints, signatures, national ID cards, and has paper ballot verifications. Meanwhile elections in America can be decided by some elite cobal system established in the 18th century by rich property owners for the explicit intention of disregarding the will of its people to favor the property class.

Lol do you know how to migrate a community off one platform to another? Its about disrupting comms, not stopping them. Regular people will find other ways to communicate, as they always have. They have lots of options, as you’ve pointed out. I have no failings in understanding here. I told you already, signal is secure. Its security is backed by it’s western intelligence financing. It has flaws in leaking meta data, just like matrix, proton mail, and any other means of encrypted communication tools. This move is to disrupt organized communication to make it disorganized.

No one needs to mention foreign agents. If you are able to observe and analyze the greater context for a given action you can arrive at an approximate rationale for the action. The west has a history of attempting to destabilize Venezuela, they back right wing dictators as successors, they regularly fund dissident groups who want nothing more then to violently take power in Venezuela.

Its clear that Venezuela is facing external pressure to dismantle their democracy, and are taking actions to disrupt those efforts.

deleted by creator

“Likely”? “For sure”? So you have no idea of the opposition is using them, got it.

And… That doesn’t change the fact it’s not widely adopted enough for peer2peer chat services without the need of a relay.

Is the opposition using those services?

Sure but if your looking to use a chat service, 45% is not a high enough watermark to have reliability. Its so contingent on the network operator to allow for an IPV6 connection. And like I said, places like AT&T have a NAT on their IPV6 network.

Sure, but ipv6 is not widely adopted. I’m behind a CG-NAT but can’t get an ipv6 so I have to operate a vps bridge to host my services. Some cell networks have ipv6 support but a few implement a NAT for it as well. AT&T only allows port 80 and 443.

Its not consistent enough to be useful without a centralized relay.