Comment on [deleted]

• Spotted_Lady@wolfballs.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

  That's not quite what I'm calling for either. In fact, I'm saying much what you are. Self-policing is part of raising one's game. So allow extra privileges for those willing to pay and be vetted so they won't humiliate whatever new site. Often, those who raise the objection of increased security being a problem want to take your rights in some other way with their double standards.

  source

  • goldenballs@wolfballs.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

    Vetting that means "background checks" and traceable "subscription fees" is of no interest to some of us who prefer liberty, and also security from potential trojan horse bad actors who want to smole out and dox some of us. The best you can hope for to get buy in, us a 2-tier system, where you have the shallow surface where people self-police, and are mostly dishonest (like at work); and the deeper depths, where people say what they really think (like at home). Submitting to "vetting" is creating a vulnerability that can be exploited or exposed through incompetence. Anonymity or privacy or security is not a flag for malign intent, but a protection in a hostile information space, where reputation attacks are real, and trust is for sheep not for wolves.

    source

    • Spotted_Lady@wolfballs.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

      For me, in that case, vetting is the only way to assure liberty, unless you want to lure folks into the woods under other pretenses and speak to them there, not using any tech. Ditch any phones and GPS and dress up as a cyclist or hunter and bike out there.

      The vetting is to prevent what you said. Only those who pay the fees and undergo police background checks would be allowed in. And yes, some libs would pay the fees and get in first to scout to get bad actors in. I'm still trying to mull out the rest of the logistics.

      I see a 2-tier system as good. But I wouldn't stop there. Anyone could have their own 2nd tier with the illusion that everyone gets the same one. And there would need to be a way to build in things like psychology to help vet folks from within a questionnaire without tipping your hand. (Watch the CBS series Bull to get some idea how to do this. Like if you want to look for protesters, ask what others would do if they found the cashier shorted them a nickel. This could even predict how a person may react to being "misgendered.") There could be a poll about whether one leans left or right, and other preferences, but then folks do lie.

      I've mulled out this situation in various different contexts. Filesharing is a good playground to test this type of stuff. And reputation systems are no good by themselves as they can be exploited. Ruqqus discovered that the hard way. I don't know if it was real skinheads who took over, libs pretending to be skinheads, or more likely, trolls and edgy teenagers. But they upvoted all the Nazi content, downvoted everything else, and destroyed the reputation of the site to the point that nobody but Nazis would want to use it. And back to filesharing, that is the problem with a reputation system to hide the spammers. The spammers would use bots to manipulate the reputations of the content providers. The best you can do is blacklist the spammers locally, and even then, there are many of them, and doing so may block legitimate sharers who may eventually use those addresses. And if your reputation system maintains encrypted logs, they can be hacked, and if they are based on seniority, then "sleepers" will be missed and they will have the seniority to vote in favor of the spammers.

      I've thought about things like local groups/clubs. For those, I'd run them as a cross between the US Military (in structure and protocols, not combat) and the Freemasons (everyone starts as untrusted and assumed to be living in "darkness"). Either way, there are classifications or levels of trust. With the Freemasons, most only know about the Blue Lodge with its 3 levels. But that's only one type of lodge system within Freemasonry. If you fit the criteria of the other lodge systems at this point, you can then join them. Then you can gain up to 33 levels or whatever. And there may even be an even more secret one that takes you up to level 99, but not sure if that is just gossip and rantings or if that exists.

      So back to the "white pride" thing as an example, I'd say first have open to the public meetings where you don't care who joins. Just have a large cookout and invite the neighbors, giving the most invites to those you think might be interested. And use your eyes, ears, and gossip vine to watch for those who you don't want. And I don't mean by skin color at this point, since having a few Black conservatives, for instance, could be helpful. But treat them well or they could turn. No, I am meaning more folks like "white" crazies, and even whites who seem a bit too "squared away." I think I know ways to vet the "squared away" types. Maybe set up a situation to see how they hold a flashlight or knock on doors. If they don't claim to be LEO or military, and they hold the light over their head or beat a door with a flashlight while standing from off to the side, then you would want to be suspicious. Why would they lie about police or military involvement? Other things to look for in suspected feds would be steel-toed shoes, an ankle holster, or other police paraphernalia. Or maybe someone won't want cops at all at their meetings, not because they are bad, but because they have lots of eyes on them already. You don't want a cop who is being investigated as a radical to show up while being tailed, only to shift the spotlight to your group.

      source

      • goldenballs@wolfballs.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

        Quite an essay, but "vetting" seems the perfect way of undermining the very thing you claim to be wanting to protect. It's not a ruse that many would fall for or indulge.

        source

        • -> View More Comments