sparrow22

It's a matter of time. Just like with software, you have to have a bias toward open source, freedom respecting objects and support them with your cash.

Rather then step in as arbiters of truth, they should provide tools, links and APIs to let their users decide what is true and what is misinformation. If their users express some concensus, like 90%+ of real human users, then I think they're right to demote or provide warning labels on particular links.

My point is that this information is typically not verifiable in an independent sense. This get essentially to what is truth, the truth we should all agree is the truth no matter who's providing it to us. We can verify it for ourselves. As an example, if we have 14 videos of the same incident and they show roughly the same events then we can be fairly confident that that event occured because we trust that those 14 sources are real and non-colluding.

If the information is verifiably false, it doesn't matter who proves it.

It's going down across the globe and the reason is simple. Most every government is captured by the corporate presence in their country. Corporations are relentless in bribing and coercing every single jurisdiction so that their interests are satisfied. Unique is the population that recognizes the threat before it's too late.

Is there some guarantee on that swearing bit?

https://www.rokfin.com/stream/14959/DAY-2-LIVE-with-USA-trucker-convoy--Josh-Yoder seems to be an interview with the CEO of an air transport company and he made it clear they're not going into D.C.

The idea came from a privacy guide which said not to use Tor Browser.

Tor Browser: it's a browser made for anonimity, not privacy

It was created more for specialization than to split the community. As others have pointed out, anonymity is a particular kind of privacy. There's no exclusivity. You can be in both.

Though it's hard to know the effect of another sub, Privacy is one of the largest subs here so seems one of the most likely to be able to survive an offshoot.

Whether fit for purpose working receive email addresses are a requirement to obtain many services. I should be more precise though, if we are creating services that we want to be usable with privacy, then we should not support email as a requirement for use. Since the case is that many services do require email, I mean to focus here on supporting this anonymous email facility.

Right. It's not just about the question but looking a little deeper to get to what it means to have a free culture. What's required. What would be done differently. This was just a specific challenge that made sense to step back a little from. If there's a principle it should be honesty about why identifying information is required and looking for alternatives.

It seems npm is aware and is mitigating but, did you know NPM is owned by Microsoft through GitHub?