The other six are (copied from the article):

1. PUBG (3.2 mil)
2. Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (1.8 mil)
3. Counter-Strike 2 (1.4 mil)
4. Lost Ark (1.3 mil)
5. DOTA 2 (1.2 mil)
6. Cyberpunk 2077 (1 mil)

The game of Mao begins now.

Even more unusual variants include […] a game which, instead of allowing voting on rules, splits into two sub-games, one with the rule, and one without it.

This sounds insane and delightful

I gave their protocol page a look; it’s extremely in-depth. I have no idea what a vector clock is but now I get to learn. I like how they explain why blockchain isn’t a good fit.

I’m a touch worried about the extensability of the protocol, but I haven’t given it a deep read yet. I very much appreciate the share!

At EoL, corporate security tells the IT department to uninstall it.

Windows works great because MS tapes it back together slightly faster than it falls apart.

When EoL hits, those devices are either trashed, firewalled into oblivion, or assimilated into the kube.

Wanna come configure optimus for me?

This will go about as well as broadcom’s acquisition of Symantec (not well).

If you can get rid of vmware, you will have to, and if you can’t, you’ll ship buckets of benjamins to broadcom and in return they might keep your company alive.

I must disagree.

We need not wait for marginalized groups to be impacted to decry T1 ISP censorship. Ban whatever speech you want; the method of enforcement should be to arrest the perpetrators - not stop the sale of paper, the delivery of mail, or blocklist class A ip ranges.

On a more philosophical level, this is the question of “kindergarten policy” - do we punish those who crayon on the walls, or do we take away everybody’s crayons. To punish the ability to do wrong, or the act of doing wrong. Like most philosophical questions, there’s no good answer to this.

Who wants to announce a partnership with me to promote irresponsible AI?

The supreme court was non partisan. Do you expect the truth arbitration department to go any better?

The 50% of people who believe false things are going to vote for truth arbiters that we don’t like. Surely it will be amazing when the correct party is in control, but inevitably the wrong party will be in control sometimes too.

The issue is that bad truth arbitration is “sticky”. Once a bad actor is in control, they have the power to silence their own opposition.

In order for this to work, we must either make sure a bad actor never ends up at the wheel - which will eventually fail, or neuter the truth arbitration process to the point of inefficacy.

The risks here are probable and tangible. We may have the techniques to do it eventually, but I don’t think we have them right now.

This is an excellent way of looking at it, that is very different from my initial understanding.

This changes the concern profile entirely, from “who decides what is false” (big concern) to “how do we define advocating, how do we define violence, etc” - which are valid concerns, but apply to just about every law.

Off topic, the cyber security world has been wrestling with “unauthorized access” - is there implicit authorization when a device is attached to the internet? Nobody authorized me to use google - are web requests access? Is bypassing authentication access? It’s a mess.

So… what? Are you arguing for an expansion of “punitive models”?

Iraq has exceptional consistency in thought leadership. There are no drug addicts in Singapore.

Moxie marlinspike has an excellent blog post on “perfect enforcement” - if the law were applied perfectly, we would not have the lgbtq marriage rights we have today. If America had perfect consistency of thought, we would all be protestant catholic.

Consistency is not a world I strive for, and therefore, to return to the start of this thread, I do not believe the us gov should apply censorship to our communications, and I do believe that doing so would be a slippery slope, precisely and purely because censorship may prevent its own regulation.

No single body can wield this power, and therefore multiple should.

/pol/ self-censors through slides and sages, and even maintains at least some level of toxicity just to dissuade outsiders from browsing or posting - you could call it preventative censorship.

Fortunately, we don’t have to go there. We have the choice to coexist on Beehaw instead.

Even on reddit, different subs could have different moderation policies, and so if you didn’t like ex. Cyberpunk, you could go to lowsodium_cyberpunk.

Freedom to choose communities allows multiple diverse communities to form, and I think that’s the key - that there are many communities.

When the scope of truth arbitration moves from lemmy instances to the us gov, the only alternative choice for any who disagree would be to go to another country.

The beauty of the internet is that there are no countries. Any website could be anywhere - there are hundreds of thousands of choices, from twitter hashtags to irc rooms.

I do not want one hegemony of information. I do not want 5, or one for each nato member. I want as many as possible, so I may find one (or more!) that I like.

Who is the arbiter of truth? What prevents the power to censor from being abused?

The power to censor inherently includes the ability to silence its own opposition. Centralizing this power is therefore dangerous, as it is neigh impossible to regulate.

Currently, we can choose our forums - beehaw does a good job, /pol/ silences all but one worldview, and therefore I am here and not there. What happens when that choice is taken away, and one “truth” is applied universally, with no course for opposition?

Perhaps you believe you hold the correct opinions, and will not be affected. Only those who disagree with you will be silenced. Or perhaps you change your opinions to whatever you are told is correct, and therefore you do hold the correct opinions, though only by definition.

Consider that 50% of the country disagrees with you politically. If you follow a third party, it’s 98%. A forced shared truth is only “good” if it goes your way - but the odds of that are so incredibly small, and it gets much smaller when you consider infighting within the parties.