What nobody seems to grasp is that freedom ruined the Internet. Let me explain. The Internet is a Google / Tiktok owned hellscape where you're forced to accept cookies and submit to brainrot. How did this happen? It happened because the Internet was FREE from the start. Anybody was free to make any sort of website. Naturally, billionaires just bought the web, because they were free to do so. They were free to make their sites as massive and addictive as possible. Then, they were free to impose restrictions, paywalls and all sorts of unhealthy web design on their users. All of this literally stems from freedom. Freedom sort of breeds the opposite of freedom, which makes it hard to grasp. Ironically, you're still free to compete against them, but naturally you have zero chance of winning. They will only get bigger, because people won't join empty sites with no users or content. Even people who understand this dilemma are incapable of leaving their herd. The way I see it, we need to free the people by making the Internet non-free. It sounds so conflicting that you have no chance of ever explaining it to anybody. If we ever wanted to get rid of Google and their ilk, we'd need to make a new Internet with a starting point that big and addictive sites are banned from the start. We'd need to force decentralization. Any system where decentralization isn't actively forced, will start centralizing because resources always pool into one spot. Like I said, good luck explaining this to the userbase. It's a lot easier to code this thing than to make people use it. Unless you give them free money and tits.
Absolute freedom sort of sucks because if you're free to make your site as addictive as you want, people will always use the site that is the most addictiveHumans cant help themselves but to click, like drug addicts
VPN providers unironically need to be beaten to a bloody pulp.
>>107075114Yeah, we're aware. It's the very reason wikipedia is a pile of leftist/trannyfag garbage. If they charged a subscription fee, that never would have happened.
>>107075114>SAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR THE INTERNET CANT BE FREE DO NOT REDEEEEEEEEEEEEEM BLODY BITCH BENCHODSo how many cents did you make in engagement farming on Twitter this month Rajeesh?
how do I unsubscribe from saars blog
the problem is similar to politics, where say your idea of the free internet is comparable to libertarianism. complete freedom of the individual means they're free to kill, steal and destroy. communistic elements within politics keep individuals in check and stop them from dominating or screwing over the collective. but at the same time, individuals need freedom so they have a sense of personal autonomythe solution then, is to have a system where we all agree on a collective aspect to our society, and a privatized aspect. in politics this would look like porn banned on the collective internet, but as a private individual that individual is free to look at and find porn, but the collective part acts as a deterrent and makes things difficultthe collective communistic aspects of politics enforce morality where men fail or will never choose to be moral. given the option, 99% of men would pirate a game if it were freely accessible, rather than purchase it, especially if the pirated version has every advantage over the purchased one. therefore morality needs to be enforced with communistic elementsthe communistic elements should enforce moral decision making, but not make it impossible if the individual wants to use his privatized freedom to do something immoralthis similar parallel is what needs to happen with internet to stop centralization. communistic rules need to laid down as the foundation to govern how it behaves and to keep big companies in check
>>107075551furthermore, the communistic elements and privatized elements, need to be separated into things that are changeable and things that are unchangeable. unchangable things should be foundational and based on timeless principles. this are unarguable, where the data has shown objectively that "this is the result time and time again throughout history". to prevent evil people from changing what should be unchangeable, that is why we make it unchangeablethe left thinks emotionally, and they want to override objective data with their emotional thinking, which is based on a sense of fairness or equality, not on what is objective and truthful. that is why we need this communistic elements to be bulletproof. they are put in place for the welfare of all people, and no matter who gets in power, they cannot be changedthen the changeable elements are things people can fight and squabble about, their opinion, their feelings, whatevertrannies will have to keep their tranny feelings "underground" because its harmful to society, objectively. feminists, homos etc, its the same for them. they can practice those things privately, but will no longer be able to lord those things societally. pornography is another one. its objectively damaging and harmful to society, but privately people can use their personal autonomy to watch it, though societally (communistically) its discouragedthis ensures darkness stays in the shadows of life, where it belongs
>>107075702ideally it would be nice if people were moral without these forcible communistic elements, but lets be real. who is going to be moral? nobody. we are all trash
>>107075720also with internet its trickythe communistic elements represent "the identity" or "the ego" of the collective. for a country this makes alot more sense, the UK for example and its culture, its vibe, its clothing, etc. the communistic elements protect its identity, the nation and all of its people are a sort of "collective ego". that is what commuistic elements protect and preserveso like with the UK, when you import tons of migrants way too fast, you trigger a sort of "ego backlash" or fascism, because you are threatening the collective identity or ego of the countrywith the internet, its global, so its like the "collective identity" or ego of the entire world. how would we segregate it to prevent centralization? into european nations/Christian ones that share commonalities?
>>107075788oh btw, this is also why fascism is bad, its reactionary. the ideal situation is conservatism. its like with your own personal ego, you dont let somebody suddenly change who you are overnight with all these ideas. you veto ideas and slowly change your ego over time, and test things and adopt certain things you like, whilst rejecting other thingsif someone tried to suddenly change you, you would violently react and that is a kind of personal fascismkind of off topic but might be relevant
>>107075114>If we ever wanted to get rid of Google and their ilk, we'd need to make a new Internet with a starting point that big and addictive sites are banned from the start. We'd need to force decentralization. Any system where decentralization isn't actively forced, will start centralizing because resources always pool into one spot.I crown thee, King Retard
>>107075838this also brings to mind what the left is trying to do. destroy identity of nations and eliminate the privatized aspect of existing in a society, leaving mainly just the collective part left which is degenerate
>>107075357You're not fooling anyone, Alenka. Go play with a landmine.
This is, by far, the stupidest thread the glavset has spammed today.
>>107075114>anybody was free to make any sort of websiteThe majority of the Earth population cannot write plain html, less host it on their own home server. Even, most cannot understand how to send emails or operate a printer.Also, this websites are on the http (yes) protocol, so it is "the web". The internet is a distributed network with lots of wire (and tubes), and protocols that run along.>explaining to the userbaseThis place was merrier before all the npcs (like yourself) arrived. They dont have the means to understand anything. Just make sites approachable by them, dont fuck up their money transactions, dont expose them to reality, and we all will be fine.
>>107075114>The Internet is a Google / Tiktok owned hellscape>no mention to Cloudflare or AWS hereWhy?
Another thing that Rajeesh OP cannot understand is that not all websites are listed and reachable. You have to get them into the indexes, manually. Of course you could use zmap along a whole range and output urls (like the dns sec edge repeaters) and make your own indexes.>>107075788>you trigger a sort of "ego backlash" or fascismIts not like that you triple nigger. Fascism is vertically using the (State) power to extort and or coerce. Cutting your dick does not make you a woman, but when you force me to believe it by the "State" powers then it is this fascism also you little antifa shit. Of course people will resist the poison of endless nigger invasion that comes to fund the boomer pensions while they leech social security.
>>107078819yes, countries are violently reacting to their collective ego/identity coming under threat....thats fascism. its a reactionary ideology, it isnt good
>>107075114based and antianarchypilled
>>107078791They don't influence content, retard
>>107079358
Dont worry. The hammer is going to come down soon.Order will be restored.
>>107075114The decrepit old boomer retards running nations simply failed at the task of effectively regulating the internet and preventing this bullshit. Banning addictive content engagement algorithms and breaking up digital monopolies would have solved so many problems.
>>107079331Why is reacting to a threat not good? Is being moldable by external forces a desirable aspect for a collective?
>>107079366Are they going to apologise for this? The person that made this happen spams 'p here
