b1n

I think I see what you're getting at [1].

I think that in this case the image is effective as a counter to the argument being presented in the campaign.

- It shows that there are other categories of people who have legitimate reasons to want privacy and not to trust the authority of their country.

- It does it in a way that would not require explanation to anyone familiar with Anne Frank (including lots of people from UK).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Interesting algorithm HN has for ordering comments.

I agree that any good PR firm could use the meme to its advantage.

I put about a 10% probability that the slogan was chosen because it is so bad and easily subverted.

A backlash to a backlash is worth a few extra days of free coverage.

RE: 4chan. I think you might be projecting. I actually think the Anne Frank thing would cut through in the real world.

They've spent lots of money on an expensive PR firm from the old school, and what they came up with is "No Place To Hide".

This can be easily undone with the following meme...

1. Take whatever advert they create with the tag line "No Place To Hide".

2. Change the image to Ann Frank.

3. Profit.

* BONUS: Add the text "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about".

I'm about half way through this, and I honestly can't tell whether it's satire or not. If real, this could be the "The Room" [1] of pitches. Just waiting for it to turn into a Lord of the Flies type situation.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Room

Identity that solves Zooko's Triangle, Censorship Resistant Storage, P2P/Decentralization (separate from blockchain), alternative funding models for all kinds of SaaS and Open Source projects.

Look it up yourself, or don't.

There are real things happening in web 3.0, they are just being obscured by layers and layers of bullshit, scams and other fuckery. Once all that has crashed and everyone has lost all their money there will still be real and interesting tech remaining.

Be very sceptical, but don't ignore the whole thing or you might end up missing the next real wave of innovation in tech (which is what i thought HN was about).

Just noticed how bad the color choice is on that chart.

The lightest red (pink) is actually "Unlikely to ban".

> "When the battle over Huawei began, over 5G, I saw a map of the world, and it was a map of the world according to whether countries were allowing Huawei in or not, and I said to one of my young colleagues, "Oh, that's the Cold War.""

Map of countries that have banned Huawei: https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/17528.jpeg (from https://www.statista.com/chart/17528/countries-which-have-ba...)

My PinePhone runs significantly faster than my Librem 5, on account of my Librem 5 not existing - even after being part of the original kickstarter-esq funding.

Thanks, I was just about to ask.

My understanding is that Open Source means just that - The source is open for inspection. It doesn't immediately imply that the source is open for free usage by all.

Wasn't MegaUpload popularity due to streaming video content?

Doesn't the encryption make video streaming impossible in the way it was being done before (i.e. to a large psudononymous userbase)?

Someone in a previous HN post suggested that companies sometimes release limited stock in the first run so that they can then get a 'high demand' PR boost for the second. Could this be what is happening here?

Fair point.

A lot of peoples lives aren't boring. They're busy:

- Dying of an infectious disease

- Working to get enough money just to survive

- Starving to death

- Living in fear of violence

I think you're doing well as a person if you can count your life as boring.

http://www.who.int/en/

I last used SU a year or so ago and the quality of results was pretty abysmal.

Lots of spam/low quality content farmed articles and the odd gem.

SU was a useful alternative to Search, but there are now plenty of other (social/content discovery) options that return better results.

Creating a sub network of approved bitcoins who's ownership/lineage could be verified. Perhaps by forcing companies to register their wallet addresses and the details of anyone buying through their bank using a credit card (this is assuming that the company doesn't want to break the law). A 3rd party (government) signed hash could be required for all transaction to prove legality.

Deep packet inspection could be used to locate people who send bitcoin transactions (by default transactions are far from anonymous). Offline seizure could be used to prove large wallets illegality (e.g. if they tracked down silk road owners). There are plenty of algorithms that can infer people you might know based on your FB friends friends, I'm sure they can be easily applied to transactions.

As all transactions are public, what would stop a government creating a blacklist of bitcoin transactions?

Permanently banning legitimate businesses and bitcoin exchanges/banks from accepting coins from 'tainted' wallets that have received these transactions (as well as parent and grandparent wallets).

I accept that there are use cases when this isn't a problem, but being able to transfer wealth from one currency to another is a feature that a lot of successful currencies have.