What Is Web3 and Why Is Everyone Suddenly Talking About It?
Meet the new hype cycle about new tools for online decentralization.

Technological improvements have tended to follow a predictable pattern of initial excitement, subsequent disappointment, and eventual resurgence called a hype cycle.
First, a new technology is dreamed or introduced, and suddenly everyone can't stop talking about how it is going to change everything forever. These buzzy pronouncements inevitably fall far short of the imagined renaissance, making many write it off as a waste of time. But a core set of believers continues to build and eventually produces a solid, if not exactly miraculous, standard that does genuinely improve life somewhat. Then the new hot thing catches the eyes of the VC class and the cycle kicks off again.
Most innovations in the past decade or so—smartphones, the sharing economy, big data, machine learning, the Internet of Things, virtual reality, "blockchain technology"—has traveled more-or-less neatly along this cubic function of technology expectations.
If you've heard a lot about "web3" recently, you've been drawn into the creeping peak of a new hype cycle, this time concerning tools for online decentralization. Most of the technologies mentioned above fit into web3 in some ways. And like those now-settling past darlings of the tech boom, web3 will eventually fit into an unremarkable part of daily life.
Web3 evokes the idea of a "web 3.0" in contrast to the internet that we have today and the largely hobbyist and institutional web 1.0 (a retronym) before that. Web3 is supposed to be a truly decentralized and accessible online environment.
The first web wave was simultaneously "open" in ethos yet cloistered in practice. Although naturally limited by infrastructure access and ability—you basically had to be in academia or just a huge nerd to actively participate online—today's concerns about censorship and content controls were virtually unheard of. There were small communities of forums and bloggers and a larger mass of lurkers, but very few people actually "created content" or made a living online like we do today. Content controversies remained at a scale where communities could capably address them on their own.
Then came "web 2.0," the Facebookification of the internet, where big technology companies built tools that at the same time made the internet more accessible but also much more "legible" or controllable. Although "Big Tech" is a punching bag today, it was the rise of the humble browser that kicked off the concept of the internet as a platform on which anyone could build and extend functions into existing domains of life.
The problem was the platforms. While the foundations of the internet itself were decentralized—upheld by community consensus-driven standards like TCP/IP—the platforms that flourished upon it were not. This irony at the heart of the old new internet is by now a cliché. The 2006 Time Magazine person of the year—"you" and me—might best signify the ethos of that age. But today we are well aware that Alphabet gets to decide which of "you's" gets to stay and has to go on "You"Tube.
Enter web3. This suite of tools for enhanced online sovereignty aims to marry the openness of the early internet with the scale of big tech platforms. In general, web3 technologies employ peer-to-peer computing methods to place the individual in more control.
The "web3" meme is new, but the by now decade-old bitcoin is a good example of this spirit. The first blockchain technology removed the need for a centralized platform—like a bank—to move money around. With bitcoin, individuals can send money directly to anyone without relying on a third party, just like a cash transaction.
Web3 technologies aim to extend this functionality to all kinds of data, not just simple monetary transfer. So far, "all kinds" seems to mostly mean DeFi and NFTs.
Decentralized finance or DeFi is blockchain-based advanced finance. DeFi is usually built on smart contracting platforms like Ethereum or competitors like Solana or Binance Smart Chain, but DeFi projects like Sovryn are growing on bitcoin as well. DeFi allows people to directly trade, invest, or lend out liquidity for a yield—often much higher than what is available with traditional centralized financial vehicles—and can be managed by an internet-native governance structure called a decentralized autonomous organization (or DAO) and held together by a native token.
DeFi depends on smart contracts, which are kind of like a very fancy virtual vending machine. A smart contract is programmed to do certain things in response to certain other things, just like a vending machine is built to release certain items in response to receiving a certain amount of money. Put in the dollar bill—or in the case of a smart contract, send the token to a multisignature wallet—and the apparatus automatically does what it was built to without any human operation. Until the vending machine breaks down…or the smart contract gets hacked.
Profit-hungry definanciers use smart contracts and DAOs to lend out money and liquidity, invest in enterprises, arbitrage price movements, and yes: sometimes pull a rug pull and run away with a bunch of n00b money. There's a lot of risk, almost unheard of reward in a time of money printers going brrrr, and a good amount of Discord intrigue as "degens" conspire to pump and dump for maximum profits and minimum care of who gets burned along the way. No wonder the Biden administration is sniffing around.
NFTs, as you may be sick of hearing about, are a way to own a token that points to specific data, often a JPEG monkey. Some people will pay good money to "own" that monkey. They don't care if you save it and send it. They are the ones who own the cryptographic key, dangit!
Okay, so how do DeFi and NFTs "decentralize the internet"? That's a good question. It's true that these technologies remove the need for a trusted third party in advanced data transfers, but in practice it sounds mostly like a lot of financial speculation. Without downplaying the upside of unfettered financial opportunity (and without forgetting the commensurate perils), it's hard to see how having a MetaMask Ethereum wallet browser extension that allows me to buy an NFT in Discord without navigating to a separate credential screen is all that revolutionary. How about a persistent communications space that people actually use?
This is where it's helpful to recall the technology hype cycle. Right now, a startup can get a lot of VC interest if they call themselves a "web3 company" or an "NFT platform" or a "metaverse company," even if they are only tangentially related to the space or if they don't have a product at all.
Many of the oldest web3 projects originally marketed themselves as something much different than they are today. Take Ethereum, which was originally supposed to be a "world computer." By today it has pivoted to power DAOs and DeFi that are supposed to be decentralized also. It just so happens that a lot of the "decentralization" in the web3 world relies on a handful of very-expensive-to-run nodes hosted on Amazon Web Services and maintained by insiders. This is how hype works.
And web3 itself is a marketing term. Smart contracts, DAOs, and NFTs are years old. They just used to be called opcodes, multisignature wallets, and Crypto Kitties. Actually, some of the same people who propelled the rise of Web 2.0 with the Netscape browser are doing it again in the form of a lobbying push for web3-friendly federal laws. This is partially why this new term for a lot of old tech has so much buzz right now.
None of this means that web3 technology isn't useful or that genuinely new applications are not being developed. It's closer to the opposite: some of the flashier elements that are attracting comment and critique are overshadowing the new, real, and less glamorous improvements that decentralization technologies can bring.
Take NFTs. As easy as it is to make fun of NFT investors—and it is very easy—the core idea of an NFT is secretly very useful. Differentiated tokens can serve as a persistent decentralized identity, in contrast to the "login with Facebook" dynamic we are stuck with today.
That scowling monkey that is today merely a Twitter avatar and butt of anti-NFT jokes could theoretically be a universal login credential. There would be no need to hassle with separate logins for each website or just outsource the authentication bit to big company like Facebook or Google that would have auxiliary power over data and access. Signing a cryptographic key could be just as good as a password, and the scowling monkey could be a memorable designator for our human monkey brains. Reputation, work opportunities, and cryptocurrency payments could accrue to particular NFTs as reward for value creation, and perhaps you would want to employ different identities for different community contexts. This is already happening on the bleeding edges of active web3 communities.
Or we can take the monkey out of it altogether. Plenty of projects are attacking the problem of identity with "decentralized identities" or DIDs.
There is Microsoft's ION, which is building a DID based on bitcoin. The head of that project recently decamped to Jack Dorsey's Square to build an alternative bitcoin-based DID product. It doesn't have to be bitcoin-based. There are plenty based on the Consensys suite of Ethereum offerings, too.
Then there's Urbit, which seeks to rewrite computing to be more user-oriented across the entire stack from servers to social media. The team at dcSpark recently unveiled a decentralized identity tool called Urbit Visor, which would integrate DID functionality into the cohesive Urbit ecosystem. Anyone can go to the Chrome Store and install Urbit Visor to turn their Big Tech browser into an extension of the Urbitverse with one click.
There's lots of problems with web3 technologies and still many bugs to hammer out. The biggest issues seem to be the high fees, called "gas prices," and congestion on the Ethereum network as well as "decentralization in name only" that characterizes many smart contracting platforms. And of course, there is a lot of hype and dumb money sloshing around as you would expect to find on this part of the cycle.
But past the inevitable trough of disappointment are the seeds of a true shift in computing that can help us to be more sovereign in our internet experience. If you notice your browser suddenly offer a native cryptocurrency wallet—like the privacy-focused Brave Browser recently did with its Brave Wallet—that's web3. Amidst all of the silliness of Constitution-bidding DAOs and literal monkey business there is a quiet movement to reclaim control of the net for individual users, and that is something worth your time and attention.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Yes, Web 3 will be revolutionary while running on the same internet backbone controlled by a handful of corporations.
Like a Tesla driving on the same asphalt roads as a carnot cycle motor vehicle.
Not to be a downer (especially since I just took a job with a company that's working on the problem of reducing Ethereum gas prices) but... yeah, kinda. You still need access to the physical infrastructure at some level.
Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
on this page.......... Visit Here
Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FUM And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Try it, you won’t regret it........CASHAPP NOW
Corporations can’t censor people, so NBD.
— Reason
If the camps are run by the private sector, it is all cool. The Libertarian moment baby.
My buddy's sister makes $95/hr on the pc. She has been out of work for eight months but gcv last month her pay check was $25450 merely working on the pc, pop over here..... EarnCash1
The reason some of the pariah communities of recent years have moved to Mastodon is because . . . I don't believe any major corporation can shut down a community based on Mastodon nodes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastodon_(software)
Gab, with its far right community, and Trump's newly launching "Truth Social" are both on Mastodon--presumably for that reason. (Truth Social doesn't officially launch until 2022). Anyway, I don't think any corporation or the government can shut them down.
Think of it as something like Signal. When the FBI subpoenaed all the available information on a Signal user, all Signal could give them was the day the account was created. They don't have access to the encryption keys, so they couldn't supply them to the FBI. They don't even know who is talking to whom on their service.
Mastodon is a bit like that. There is no central server to kick them off of. There are only nodes, and they're administered locally. Amazon or the government can't kick someone off of a server if there is no server. They might be able to refuse to sell internet service to millions of different people, but that's hard to imagine.
Imagine McDonalds saying they will no longer sell cheeseburgers to sexists. How do they differentiate between some Mastodon traffic and other Mastodon traffic? McDonalds might be able to stop buying beef from a known sexist rancher, but I don't think McDonalds can differentiate between sexist customers and non-sexist customers.
That's the analogy.
P.S. Be part of the solution. Get on Mastodon. Start a node. I wish Reason would move to Mastodon.
Woodchipper would have been a better name. 🙂
Mastodon is a better band name.
Mastodon? Sounds like it's already extinct.
The name is... unfortunate.
It's a mammoth problem, to be sure.
Things could get woolly if they try to take on Twitter and Facebook and Amazon.
Mesh networks may eventually help decentralize the infrastructure. It won't help those needing huge server farms using huge data pipes, but they presumably have enough money to help themselves.
This year do not worry about money you can start a new Business and do an online job I have started a new Business and I am making over $84, 8254 per month I was started with 25 persons company YJl now I have make a company of 200 peoples you can start a Business with a company of 10 to 50 peoples or join an online job.
For more info Open on this web Site............E-CASH
The point of Web3 is that it will not be controllable for exactly that reason.
Right now, every one of us has a bit of the internet on our computer- the way modern browsers work is that they cache images, web pages, style sheets and other data. Right now, the technology exists to allow browsers to share that data in BitTorrent style mesh networks. And right now, people are working to bridge this gap.
While you are correct that a handful of corporations control key parts of our infrastructure, the continued existence of BitTorrent shows that they are unable to meaningfully detect, classify, and interdict this type of traffic in a way that doesn't lose them real customers.
Again, I know it is easy to be skeptical, but there are very real technologies just getting a foothold. The Inter-Planetary File System (IPFS) is an example of exactly this type of Peer-to-Peer distributed storage of files. And pretty soon that will be extended to be more than just a distributed CDN.
"While you are correct that a handful of corporations control key parts of our infrastructure, the continued existence of BitTorrent shows that they are unable to meaningfully detect, classify, and interdict this type of traffic in a way that doesn't lose them real customers."
No, what it means is the corps have not yet been incentivized politically or monetarily into shutting it down.
No, they really can't differentiate between sexist and non-sexist internet traffic among their customers, and these kinds of applications move the infrastructure to the customer side of the equation.
Exactly, and they do it in an encrypted way. So your ISP can see that you are connected to TOR, and that you are sending SOMETHING encrypted into it, but that is it. They don't know if you are sending a web page that you cached and is being requested by someone else, or if you are sending messages to a friend on a Matrix client.
These ISPs are unable to discriminate "Good" traffic from "Bad". So their only choice is to allow all traffic or none- the latter meaning they go out of business.
The response will to be to make encrypted transmissions evidence of terroristic intent and use the Patriot Act on you. illegal. You can no longer hide when government turns its gorgon stare on you.
There's no way you can do that. You kill encryption, you kill a huge chunk of what corporate America needs to do online.
And I think it's important to understand that we're not talking about something that might happen in the future.
Services like this have existed for a very long time. Sometimes, the government says they want a back door into these services. It just means the politician in question has no idea what they're talking about. When the courts issue a subpoena to Signal and force them to cough up everything they have on an account, the only thing they have to give them is when the account was opened and the last day it was accessed. And that's after they discover the account by seizing a phone without a password--and they know who the user is. Signal still can't give them anything because they don't have anything. When there is no server, the only possible back door is a back door to nothing and nowhere. They don't even know who is talking to whom, much less what was said. The vault is empty.
You might try downloading Signal for desktop and Signal for your phone. You can give it control of your text messages, do phone calls, and video conferencing with it--in an interface that's as easy to use as any text message service's contacts app--and if the person you're contacting is also on Signal, you communications are about as secure as they possibly can be. And they've been in operation for about ten years now.
It works more or less the same way with these other applications. Gab is full of neo-Nazis, conspiracy wackos, and 8chan types, and there isn't anything anybody can do about it--because it's on a Mastodon node. If they were on some other model, they'd need to go on some sever farm in Russia like Parler. When Donald Trump's new Truth Social social media network officially launches in a few months, they'll be basing it on Mastodon, too. There will be thousands or tens of thousands of nodes, and even if the government or telco/ISPs were able to differentiate between Truth Social data and the rest, and they took those nodes down, thousands more would crop up again in a matter of hours as the old ones were taken down.
An analogy might be made to the war on drugs. The government can make marijuana illegal. They can throw people in prison for processing it or selling it. They can track all of our financial transactions to look for people who are laundering money from marijuana sales. They can meticulously search planes and passengers with dogs and high tech equipment. They can set the Coast Guard up to intercept boats from approaching the coast. They can throw millions and millions of people in prison, force them to go into 12 step programs, and defend themselves in court. They can subject children to educational programs about avoiding marijuana use for 50 years. They can operate in foreign countries to try and eradicate fields of marijuana before they're imported.
Despite all the government's power and efforts, however, what they cannot do is stop the growing, importation, distribution, or sales of marijuana. That is beyond their ability. Stopping the consumption of marijuana is something they simply cannot do. It seems amazing, but it isn't. There are lots of things the government simply cannot do. This is just another one of those things. They may TRY to stamp out something like Mastodon nodes and crush massively distributed decentralized apps, but they can't actually accomplish it. No doubt, they may try. But, you know, one of the best reasons to end the war on marijuana is because it's futile. And that's what we're talking about here.
While I agree with you on most topics, on this one I believe you are approaching from a naive viewpoint. The government can and has always carved out exceptions for "friends". The government can target encrypted transmissions from @Highlander and grind it and the user behind it into dust, while deliberately, even gleefully, ignoring encrypted content from @JackDorsey. The ability to do so comes with resources. Large corporations come with the resources to make interference from government costly to politicians in terms of power and/or influence. And please note that, at least in this reference, government is the sum accretion of historical actions, while politicians are the current, ephemeral place holders for posts with in the government. Temporary place holders who will do what ever is necessary to cling to power and influence for just one more day. So the DoD can effectively erase what happened or is happening to a Colonel in the Marine Corp, but cannot, will not or don't have the ability or desire to stop Halliburton.
And let's not forget that ICANN pretty much gets final say in what goes where, when, and how.
Will Web3 make it easier for wingnut.com to spread harmful disinformation like "Inflation is a legitimate issue that deserves coverage" or "Biden's handling of Afghanistan was embarrassingly incompetent"? If so, I'm not looking forward to it.
#DefendBidenAtAllCosts
I hope Web3 will make it easier for folks to cherrypick petroleum data to compare current $/bbl to say that of March 17, 2002 at 04:18 GMT. This could be revolutionary.
It would be much better if Web3 could scan every sentence for an anti-Biden tone and automatically respond with HAPERINFLATION or SLOPPY PULLOUT to shut down that line of conversation.
#LibertariansForBiden
All information should be filtered and curated by the government. It’s the only way to be safe.
Won't web3 have automatic misinformation disclaimers added to every website that is against the narrative?
I was going to criticize your first post for laziness dt a lack of HAPERINFLATION but you recovered quickly.
At least it should make it easier to find the missing cites everyone demands, and to check anyone's membership in various organizations.
Cool!
Then we could cut down on the number of assertions made in this commentariat with no evidence, and playing loosey-goosey with claiming this or that person is a member of this or that political group, again with no evidence.
Youre leaving?
Ofcourse everyone should be talking about web3 right now!! its 21st century!!! https://naijadoings.com.ng
"ninjadongs" may be the strangest fetish I've heard of... all day, at least.
You've never heard of it because...they're Ninjas!
"First, a new technology is dreamed or introduced, and suddenly everyone can't stop talking about how it is going to change everything forever. These buzzy pronouncements inevitably fall far short of the imagined renaissance, making many write it off as a waste of time. But a core set of believers continues to build and eventually produces a solid, if not exactly miraculous, standard that does genuinely improve life somewhat. Then the new hot thing catches the eyes of the VC class and the cycle kicks off again."
Hmm, I wonder if something like this applies to political fads, especially progressive panic issues.
eventually produces a solid, if not exactly miraculous, standard that does genuinely improve life somewhat
No, no it doesn't.
No. Business fads are constrained by physical and financial realities. Eventually you run out of money and either produce something useful or go bankrupt. Political fads face no such consequences. When it becomes obvious that X was a bad idea, the political answer is "we weren't doing X hard enough."
Just a few examples:
- Nixon launches the "war" on drugs. Drug use nevertheless increases. Every politician since (especially including our current Drug Warrior-in-Chief) - "We need harsher drug laws."
- 'Poverty is bad, let's create Social Security.' Social security doesn't fix poverty. 'We need to increase benefits again.'
- 'We need to stimulate the economy.' Pumping tax dollars into the economy depresses private investment and drives inflation. 'We need another stimulus.'
Johnny can't read, we need to increase funding and force more years of ineducation on the chilluns.
Where are the morning links?
Robby is waiting for Psaki’s review and approval.
Inflation makes links too expensive. But it is only transitory.
All the fuck Joe Biden stuff ruined it.
Where is the mourning lynx?
Think it’s Thanksgiving week off for the Reason staff.
There will be no morning links until they feel enough people have forgotten about Waukesha.
Can't have anyone ask why the coverage is so different from Charlottesville...
https://reason.com/search/Charlottesville/
15+ articles just on the first page of results.
Wonder how many Reason articles we'll see about Waukesha.
So far the count is... 0
There was an article late yesterday regarding the suspect’s bail situation.
lobbying to eliminate cash bail altogether....
In their defense, there's much more news to cover wrt to the Presidency now that the, uh, measured, unifying adult in the room is in charge. In 2017, the divisive, racist child-in-Chief was so busy spewing so large a volume of hatred on the internet, that the only soundbite reason could grab was "We're closely following the terrible events unfolding in Charlottesville, Virginia. We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides."
https://reason.com/search/Charlottesville?date_start=2017-08-10
Two within a day of the violence. Waukesha 'ramming' took place on Sunday.
Could be a staffing shortage at Reason explains the lag. Totally understandable, who could've foreseen getting woke and going broke.
https://twitter.com/EricMMatheny/status/1462873205392265220?t=qxkt2YptFPcENgppXmfpqw&s=19
The mainstream media is in lockstep on the Waukesha narrative. This story will not get top-billing; but in the time it does get they will emphasize that this was a criminal escaping a previous crime scene. Then they will phase it out until it’s a memory. That’s how they play us.
I dunno if this is the big trump card they think it is......
MSM considering this story just a bump in the road?
It's because they don't have any writers anymore, just editors.
I've been doing a good job not talking about it.
Me too.
I'm a pessimist. If we successfully decentralized internet platforms, then authoritarians will just focus on internet providers, controlling who's allowed access to the internet. Intent access is a privilege not a right after all.
I'm a pessimist.
IDK,
1st Generation Futurist: Technology will destroy us all! (Prototype: Capek)
2nd Generation Futurist: Technology will save us all! (Prototype: Kurzweil)
3rd Generation Futurist: Technology will make things better but can't truly revolutionize society without unsolving many of the problems society currently has solved and/or creating new problems that will need to be solved. (Prototype: Lots/Subjective, so, uh, Clarke)
If you think Web3 is going to kill us all itself, yeah, you're a pessimist. Otherwise, I'd say you're a realist.
'Exemplar' probably better than 'Prototype'.
Mesh networks have a lot of potential for home connections, decentralizing the infrastructure. Basically, there are only leaf nodes, with everything routing among them, adapting as new nodes come on line and others disappear, independent of any ISPs.
Traffic volumes are an obstacle, but WiFi speeds get higher and higher all the time, and maybe it won't matter. It's hard to predict the future.
Exactly. A lot of the huge backbone pipes are necessary mainly because large companies have relatively centralized datacenters where their content is stored. For example, my company has 6 datacenters worldwide, and so we have some huge pipes going into those DCs, and enormous peering agreements with other large companies.
In a fully distributed internet, people in a large city don't need to send and receive data in our datacenter in New York. Instead, that data is sitting in the caches of other internet users sitting in their city. Thus the bandwidth requirements at my datacenter go from "serve the entire East Coast USA" to "seed changing content to a few thousand users".
This is actually already underway with Content Distribution Networks (CDNs)- companies that establish small POPs around the world to host customers content closer to users as a service, and speed up delivery while decreasing bandwidth requirements. These CDNs are increasingly commoditized, meaning that more and more POPs are being created at cheaper and cheaper prices. The natural progression is for the POPs to disappear in favor of putting the content on peoples' computer.
I wonder if there's a business model to be built around providing people with some level of "free" internet access in exchange for hosting some amount of data.
Another left lie pushed by SPB and White Mike falls as lawyer pleads guilty to extorting Rep Gaetz' father.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/florida-man-pleads-guilty-in-attempt-to-extort-25m-from-matt-gaetzs-father
They’ll surely admit their mistake and learn from it.
Gaetz might be a troll, but something smelled funny about the media frenzy over that whole story from the beginning, ESPECIALLY the fact that the Dems weren't hammering the Republicans on the news shows to make him resign when this all came out. I think Pelosi realized they didn't want to dip their toe in that pool and have a shark bite their foot off.
Or we can take the monkey out of it altogether. Plenty of projects are attacking the problem of identity with "decentralized identities" or DIDs.
Lots of Web 1.0 had zero web-facing authentication whatsoever. The original "DID" was your email address. "Anybody" could register a domain and set up an email server, but the domains/emails were traceable to whomever had set up the server... until Yahoo and Hotmail created "anonymous" email.
Sometimes, in the churn of the hype cycle, the same thing gets invented over and over again, even by pretty nerdy/smart people, only more complicated as to justify/obfuscate the hype.
I thought it was always IP based. Am I missing something?
Thought what was always IP based? IP was never meant to authenticate the user/owner, domain name registration was.
How else are recipients identified?
How else are recipients identified?
It's pretty explicit: username@subdomain.domain.tld. The IP identifies the endpoint, not the user.
The original two-factor authentication contained exactly two factors: username, password. Modern "two-factor" authentication uses three (or more), the assumption being that all insecurities associated with one- or two-factor authentication can be solved by simply piling on more factors, which is untrue/incorrect/not-necessarily correct.
But what about packets?
I'm just a shmuck who went to college. What do I know?
Yeah, you're also a cook in 2021 who didn't know what a cuban sandwich was. "What exactly do you know?" would seem to be a very valid question.
I live in fucking Maine alright. The entire population of the state is less than the average borough. So sue me about the sandwich.
Since I went to college IP was your address on the internet, though it often changes when your provider divvies them out.
Am I wrong?
Since I went to college IP was your address on the internet, though it often changes when your provider divvies them out.
Am I wrong?
As I said, the IP was never meant to identify you individually, just the network or terminal. Even before IP was set up it was possible for multiple users to access the same terminal. DNS and email addressing were the first "distributed" implementation specifically intended for anyone anywhere on the internet to send a message and get it delivered securely to a specific person.
Other implementations existed, or predate it, but they generally don't conform as they required users to be on the same system/network. It was always possible to encrypt the message outside of the delivery system and send it to any number of recipients, only one of whom had the key to read the message but, again, since everyone on the network received the message and the security was performed offline, it's dubious that this would count. Even then, the encryption would be the determining factor of the recipient, not the IP.
You could have just said P2P.
No, you are not wrong.
Come on dude. I'm wrong about everything, right? So tell me I'm wrong!
It's still fair to note that distributed identity in the new world is much more manageable. While you are correct that anyone could (for example) roll their own email server and perform authentication via that mechanism, web3 lowers that bar significantly. If your computer can produce a cryptographic signature, you have one or many distributed IDs. And one ID can have metadata attached to it and distributed across decentralized data store.
Even better, whereas your own personal email server could compromise your IRL identity (through domain registration or IPs ultimately leading to your provider), a DID is more secure, since as long as you have the secret (on a flash drive or similar) you can access that identity from anywhere.
You cherry picked and conflate secrecy with anonymity.
a DID is more secure
More secure against what? Knowing who the ID holder is IRL? Then it doesn't provide a more verifiable form of identity. More secure against forgery? Not if you're claiming it's more secure against knowing who the ID holder is IRL. And, more cogently, not if the old-school email or web mail server was already secured using strong encryption.
How did the crypto community allow people who think along the lines of "one cipher/ID/key to rule them all" to rise to power? Like there's only ever been one way to hack any given system and it's always been the inability to use anything other than 'abcd1234' or 'password' as the key.
+1 "rubber hose attack"
DID would've magically made Podesta too smart to fall for a phishing scam. The problem was the system for detecting phishing was too complicated. DID will make it simpler by building in a distributed, anonymous verification network under the hood. More than foolproof for even today's modern fool.
"How did the crypto community allow people who think along the lines of "one cipher/ID/key to rule them all" to rise to power?"
Pretty much no one in the crypto community that I know of believes this...at all.
There are specific times where it is useful to confirm that the person talking to me now is the same person I have seen elsewhere. That doesn't require a person having one identity to rule them all- and in fact when you look at the Cypherpunk email lists, they specifically reject the notion that a person will be known solely by a single identifier. That is why HD wallets are a thing.
Pretty much no one in the crypto community that I know of believes this...at all.
And yet, here we are discussing a "novel" DID to be used across networks. Zero-knowledge. Proof.
A valid defense I would've accepted is the 'no show, no go' excuse that NASA/early astronauts used. If you don't make public appearances and let PR people and salesmen in, you don't secure the funding to make your project a reality. But, again, that means the web3 meme is more hype than substance.
"More secure against what? "
A DID is more secure than an anonymous email provider like Yahoo, because you are not dependent on a 3rd party who tracks your every connection to their servers and can share that data with hackers and/or the government. It is more secure than running your own email server because email servers are a pretty common vector for attacks, and are heavyweight if all you want is an identity. (You are running a host with an OS and running services, and registering a domain, etc etc.)
"Knowing who the ID holder is IRL? Then it doesn't provide a more verifiable form of identity. "
On the contrary, identities can be useful even when they are not connected to real life. Consider Satoshi Nakamoto. Nobody knows who he/they are in real life, and this has led to several instances where messages have popped up in various forums claiming to be from Satoshi. These messages have been easily confirmed or disregarded because there is a PGP signature that only Satoshi had. And in fact, some messages sent from an account Satoshi had on some other sites are specifically disputed because he did not sign them cryptographically.
Some (probably not you) think of Identity as a solution to a 1:1 problem. That is, I have one identity, and I need to be able to use it in multiple places and always link it back to myself. But in fact there are many use cases where a pseudonymous identity is useful. Satoshi's is one case, but even on this comment section, spoofing other users is a regular practice that wouldn't exist with DID.
Again, DID is not the only way to solve for these use cases, and the idea of cryptographic signing is of course not new. But creating a decentralized protocol for broadcasting and sharing cryptographic sigs IS a new evolution of an important technology.
But creating a decentralized protocol for broadcasting and sharing cryptographic sigs IS a new evolution of an important technology.
No, it's not. See Tango Delta below. People were emailing and texting GPG keys around a decade ago and email passwords a decade before that. The novel distinction between this system and those is that the cryptographic sig is *centralized* in the protocol. And even at that, all kinds of providers have been encrypting and using cryptographic sigs intrinsic to their implementation of the protocol(s) for decades.
Will sarc continue to stan for Biden as inflation hits booze prices?
https://www.dailywire.com/news/liquor-shortage-hits-united-states-as-holidays-approach
Chumby, is the beast ice open at risk from inflation?
Nobody needs 27 kinds of booze anyway.
Will Jesse continue to stand with Republicans as inflation hits booze?
Fail.
Inflation in Germany hit its highest level in nearly three decades last month, fueled by rising energy costs, supply chain bottlenecks and price hikes following the easing of pandemic lockdowns.
Biden's fault too, right?
Every ill in the world can be blamed on progressives. Just ask Ken. He's got it all figured out.
Here's Trump bragging about risukh oil prices. He's bragging because it'll make oil companies richer. Republicans are the dumbest mfers on the planet.
---Oil prices spiked on Thursday morning after U.S. President Donald Trump said that he spoke with the Saudi Crown Prince, and hoped and expected that Saudi Arabia and Russia would “cut back approximately 10 Million Barrels, and maybe substantially more,” sending oil prices soaring by 20 percent.
“Just spoke to my friend MBS (Crown Prince) of Saudi Arabia, who spoke with President Putin of Russia, & I expect & hope that they will be cutting back approximately 10 Million Barrels, and maybe substantially more which, if it happens, will be GREAT for the oil & gas industry!” President Trump tweeted on Thursday.
Republicans used to be the party that fought against economic ignorance.
Now they're proud dumbfucks, just like the progressives they hate.
Speaking of dumbfucks, did you have links to go with those allegations?
Saying "Here's Trump bragging about risukh (???) oil prices", usually implies you'll be providing some.
Sarc is so fucking gone he doesn't realize liberals exist is europe.
Yes, he followed the same disastrous policies they did.
Fuck Joe Biden
Trump was president dumbfuck. He set us up for this shit to the extent any one individual can be blamed he's the guy who could have taken measures to address supply chain issues but your boy Trump basically checked out after losing that election. You guys are the dumbest mfers on the planet.
Fuck you.
When your guy is president, and the other party holds Congress, then it's the fault of the other party!
When their guy is president, and their party holds Congress, then it's obviously their fault!
When your guy is president, and your party hold Congress, it was because of the previous administration!
When their guy is president, and your party holds Congress, then obviously they forced bad things to happen!
IT'S NEVER YOUR GUY'S FAULT!!!11!!!ONE!!!!!11!!!!
Not a leftist folks! Sarc now blames trump for everything. What a sad alcoholic.
Sometimes it is difficult to discern cause and effect but you can generally find who supports what by following the money used to bribe our politicians.
The democrats have far more money donated to them than the gop you ignorant fuck. From billionaires and corporations. How much of a self own is your comment. Lol
Money shmuny. Power is where it's at. Politicians aren't bribed, at least not in this country. They do it for the power.
In an ethics training course I had to take for work the other day, one of the questions involved paying off someone at customs or an airport or whatever to get through. The correct answer was that you should be detained indefinitely rather than grease the wheels. I guess that's why I'm not a manager.
"In an ethics training course I had to take for work the other day"
So sorry that happened to you sarc. I know how ethics get in the way of your pathologies.
I’m assuming it was an HR issue that caused you to have to take an ethics class.
I remember that exact question on an ethics training course I had to take. I was wondering if the company’s true intention was to tell us what we should do in those situations, with a little wink.
At some point, people ought to realize that:
1. they are more interested in power than policy; and
2. the only real difference between Team Red and Team Blue is the flavor of the scaremongering that they use to drive scared voters to the polls.
Mencken said, and I paraphrase here "In a two party system, the goal of each party is to convince voters that the other party is evil. And they're both right."
I'm not an American voter, nor will I ever be. I'm from the outside looking in, and I see a party of selfish idiots and a party of world destroying demons.
Outside the German Nazi party, there's never been a Western political party more historically evil than the Democrats.
the Democrat party is the oldest and most enduring racist political party in history, and its racism continues to this day. Here are the facts:
The Democrat Party was founded in 1828. Its first national party platform, ratified during the 1840 Presidential election, stated: “ that all efforts by abolitionists or others, made to induce congress to interfere with questions of slavery… are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people… and ought not to be countenanced by any friend to our political institutions.”
The message was clear: the Democrat Party did not consider Black Americans to be “people” deserving of “happiness.”
That same language was in every national Democrat party platform for the next 16 years.
Democrat party leaders acted on their racist principles, committing high treason against their country and their fellow Americans between 1861-1865 in order to preserve the system of Black human bondage.
In 1868, the Democrat Party platform urged amnesty for the traitors who, during the Civil War, killed hundreds of thousands of Americans for the purpose of preserving slavery. The platform also called for “the abolition of the Freedmen’s Bureau; and all political instrumentalities designed to secure negro supremacy”:
In 1904, seventy-six years after its founding, the Democrat party’s platform complained about the Republican platform:
“The race question has brought countless woes to this country. The calm wisdom of the American people should see to it that it brings no more.
To revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed. We therefore deprecate and condemn the Bourbon-like selfish, and narrow spirit of the recent Republican Convention at Chicago which sought to kindle anew the embers of racial and sectional strife, and we appeal from it to the sober common sense and patriotic spirit of the American people.” . . .
Throughout most of the 20th century, Democrats condoned or excused policies of apartheid and disenfranchisement of Black Americans.
Senate Democrats successfully filibustered a Republican led anti-lynching bill in 1934, and a Republican-led effort to ban the poll tax in 1940. At the time, the poll tax was so effective in the American South that only 3% of Black Americans were registered to vote there.
Elected Democrats fought tooth and nail against anti-racist legislation, filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and engaging in so-called “massive resistance” against school integration into the early 1970s.
Then we remember other viciously anti-human Democratic Party actions like the Indian Removal Act and the Trail of Tears. Or the Japanese Internment Camps and anti-Asian immigration laws.
A century and half of racist policies vigorously supported by Democrat party leaders — no other North American political party in history comes close.
Look at what Trump did in four years versus the incredible damage and constitutional violations Biden has done in 9 short months and your analogy is shown to be demonstrably false.
Historically that was true, but if you think "both sides" are equally bad now, you haven't been paying attention for the past 2 years.
"Equally?"
Would you rather choke an avocado or a peach?
When does one finally realize that a turd sandwich is a turd sandwich, and a giant douche is a giant douche?
I think we’re up to about six years.
More like would you rather choke on an apple seed or molten lead.
You're refusal to acknowledge the crazy shit your precious Joe has done, versus a rather innocuous Trump, is proof of your dishonesty.
When given a choice between really fucking bad and really fucking worse, I say "Smell my finger."
I would assert precisely the opposite.
The Republicans can no longer claim ethical high ground after January 6th, and the Trump ass kissing that follower among Congressional Republicans.
It’s not about “ethical high ground” dumbass. It’s about actual policies that effect our daily lives, like vaccine mandates for the right to earn a living, mandating breathalyzers in all new cars, politicizing the FBI to investigate parents, etc.
January 6 was absolutely fucking nothing except an excuse for your crowd to kill two women and cry "Reichstag Fire", White Mike.
Even here you were hailing poor Sicknick as your very own Horst Wessel.
Republicans proudly gave up the moral high ground. Proudly. Ever read the comments? Morals are for losers. And Trump is a winner. The Party Of Trump has no morals.
Suck that totalitarian dick, soycasmic
That has to be the most intelligent comment you have ever made.
More honest than anything you've ever typed.
"You guys are the dumbest mfers on the planet."
Lol, you voted for Biden.
It is amazing how fuckong ignorant you are. Lol.
Trump expanded energy production under his administration.
Biden on day one sought to transition energy. The same failures as Europe.
https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/companies/2021-11-15-germanys-rwe-unveils-ambitious-50bn-plan-in-green-energy-push/
He cut off pipelines and exploration.
And you stupidly blame the other guy?
Here's reality:
"The US federal government is on Wednesday launching an auction of more than 80m acres of the gulf for fossil fuel extraction, a record sell-off that will lock in years, and potentially decades, of planet-heating emissions.
The enormous size of the lease sale – covering an area that is twice as large as Florida – is a blunt repudiation of Biden’s previous promise to shut down new drilling on public lands and waters. It has stunned environmentalists who argue the auction punctures the US’s shaky credibility on the climate crisis and will make it harder to avert catastrophic impacts from soaring global heating."
And the rigs counts are another example of oil exploration expanding dramatically under Biden's administration. Facts mfers.
And what did he just do in Alaska?
And he did it solely because the Trump administration had allowed it.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/energy/biden-suspends-oil-drilling-leases-alaska-s-arctic-refuge-n1269270
Also in New Mexico.
"President Joe Biden announced Monday he is seeking a 20-year ban on oil and gas drilling on Chaco Canyon"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/biden-looking-at-20-year-ban-on-oil-gas-drilling-near-native-american-heritage-site/ar-AAQJose
Never confuse anything JesseAz says with veritas.
He is best muted, so you don't feel like defending yourself from things you (or anyone else) never said nor did.
Sarc demands i be muted so his hypocrisy can't be exposed lol.
As usual sarcasmic is pushing censorship.
Yes. In many ways.
How fucking dumb are you and sarc? Germany is ar the forefront of green energy. The same energy inflation happened on Spain when they tried to transition. And Europe itself has been as bad at covid spending as the US.
Do you realize how stupid your comment is? How much ignorance exudes from it?
Also Germany gets a ton of energy from neighboring countries, like poland
Inflation in Germany had no impact on your failed post.
Almost like there's a cabal of globalist "elites" deliberately destroying the livelihoods of the working and middle class
You're wrong and fucked because you're stupid.
"SHUT UP DUMMY!!", Stroozle explained.
LOL
This.
This is the BEST The Prince of Stromboli can come up with.
Ultra fail.
This was not worth the 50 cents.
50 cents in 2016 dollars or 2021 dollars?
2035 dollars.
It is at risk of…spoiling before the championship game is played.
Wasn't that a Keanu Reeves movie?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10230739/Social-media-users-reveal-oddest-subway-encounters.html
Dude with the hat's got style!
Forget Web 3.0, the hot new item is my dick. Everybody's talking about my dick! Is it thrilling? Is it mysterious? Is it promising to rock your world? Is it all the buzz on Madison Avenue? Yes! It's all these things and so many more! You really have to get to know my dick to take advantage of all the many opportunities offered by my dick! Come, don't be left behind, get your taste of my dick now before it's too late!
Nobody cares about your suet pudding.
Not certain that’s a good pick up line, but Tony might fall for it.
Of course Tony will fall for it. If it hangs to the left, you don't even have to say anything.
Wasn't this in one of Andrew Gillum's campaign commercials?
Q: What do you get when you cross a penis, a potato, and an ocean liner?
A: Dictatorship!
I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip the waitress. And the veal? Oh man the veal...
Getting bored waiting for White Mike to show up so you can flirt, huh?
Quelle surprise. Lin Wood is a slimy right-wing grifter.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/kyle-rittenhouse-tucker-carlson-trump-b1962796.html
Lin Wood left Rittenhouse in jail so that he could fundraise off his name.
Jeff. You pushed the Gaetz story... comment?
The fight over the money will be interesting. Also the president calling him a white supremacist? That's not going to go away soon.
It will be a vortex of grift.
I saw that movie. Two stars. Max.
Was Keanu Reeves in it?
I think that one was with Kevin Spacey in a pickup truck chasing the lawyer vortex. My favorite part was when the briefcase storm smashed the pickup windows.
Spacey is a fag. But Keanu is on YouTube being so badass with guns that John Wick is impersonating him!
I'd register to vote if Keanu got nominated.
"Like... Totally dude!"
There's a platform I can support.
Thank goodness Rick Schroeder stepped in and actually helped cover Rittenhouse's bail.
And the VP and her entire staff. Don't forget that.
Lin Wood is really revealing his true depths right now.
BLM Activist Claims Waukesha Tragedy Might Be Retaliation For Kyle Rittenhouse Verdict
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkmZVsBwBf0
Waukesha officials and virtually all media outlets have proclaimed that Brooks wasn't a "terrorist" (solely because he acted alone).
If other news stories were correct in claiming Brooks was a BLM activist and a black supremacist, it appears that his murderous drive through lilly white Waukesha may have been in response to the Rittenhouse verdict in nearby Kenasha.
Had Brooks been a Trump supporter, and had Brooks' dozens of victims been black, ALL of the news media (within minutes) would have proclaimed that a white supremacist mass murdered dozens of blacks because he was a racist.
Police Dismiss Waukesha Suspect’s Radical BLM Views – Downplay Racial Motive with Excuse for Parade Massacre
https://beckernews.com/police-dismiss-waukesha-suspects-radical-blm-views-downplay-racial-motive-with-excuse-for-parade-massacre-43116/?utm_source=BN&utm_medium=PTN
BLM Activist on Waukesha: 'It Sounds Like the Revolution Has Started'
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/kevindowneyjr/2021/11/22/blm-activist-on-waukesha-it-sounds-like-the-revolution-has-started-n1535508
Gingrich: Waukesha Suspect ‘Should Be Treated as a Terrorist’
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2021/11/23/gingrich-waukesha-suspect-should-be-treated-as-a-terrorist/
That is a garbage news site. Why do you cite them? It's run by a former producer for Hannity's show and it is full of clickbaity rage-inducing headlines.
That is a garbage news site.
YouTube? Agreed.
Perhaps Chem Jeff can elaborate on his defense of Brooks and his murderous attack on a peaceful gathering of people who were not the same race as Brooks.
Nice try. I'm not defending Brooks. I'm attacking your crappy choice of 'news' sites. It is right-wing clickbait garbage.
Waukesha Parade Attack Now Believed to Be ‘Intentional,’ Suspect Charged by Police with 5 Counts of Homicide
https://beckernews.com/breaking-waukesha-parade-attack-now-believed-to-be-intentional-suspect-charged-by-police-with-5-counts-of-homicide-43156/
Any objective person who sees/reads some of Brooks' many racist postings (at the beckernews website posted above) would conclude that Brooks' murderous rampage of dozens of white people in Waukesha was almost certainly triggered by his disdain for whites and police.
Here is a great example of how that is a garbage news site.
Waukesha Parade Attack Now Believed to Be ‘Intentional,’
And what is the source for this claim? Is it a statement from law enforcement? Is it a quotation from a press conference? No, it is a tweet from a right-wing twitter bot, which itself does not cite any sources for its claim. There is no substance to that claim whatsoever that is presented in the article.
That place is garbage. Do better.
So it's better sourced than every allegation against Trump
Don't trash Garbage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ath-3HU_5Q
Best. Album. Ever.
You are not defending Brooks. You are just claiming he couldn't have done it out of racism or in support of BLM, despite that being the most plausible motive supported by the facts. You are not defending him, you are just trying to lie about his motive. It just happened. Some people did some things. Now let's move on and talk about evil white supremacists from more.
You are as transparent as you are ignorant.
You are not defending Brooks.
That's right I'm not. I'm pointing out how Bill Godshall is relying on garbage clickbait reporting that just tells him what he wants to hear. And you are trying to draw me into an argument based on a position I didn't take. Have you been taking lessons from Jesse?
Perhaps Chem Jeff can explain Brooks' posting of dozens of pro BLM anti white rants.
Is Jeff claiming Brooks' postings were fake, and instead were posted by white supremacists?
No, Jeff is claiming that you should find a better source for your news.
The Strange Incident in Waukesha
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuPmk0DfJaA
If Kyle Rittenhouse's social media can be scoured by the FBI for white nationalist sympathies, then this guy's social media certainly can for BLM postings.
In Jeff world, a half Mexican kid shooting three white guys who were trying to burn down a car dealership owned by an East Indian is an example of white supremacy.
I know that doesn't relate to this topic, but just consider who you are talking to here and adjust your expectations accordingly.
I dunno... My expectations are on the order of an elephant with norovirus on that front. I think they're probably appropriately scaled.
Lol. You have linked to the daily kos.
He was fleeing a knife fight. With nobody chasing him.
But, back to the topic of the article:
I do like the idea of having a transferrable online identity, that is not tied to a specific platform. Maybe that is what Facebook's new "Meta" idea is supposed to be about, I don't know. That way a person can move about the Internet and interact with friends in a similar way to how it works in real life.
I'm sure it will work completely differently and be transcendentally better than old-school 'chemjeff radical individualist', slightly less old-school 'chemjeff@chemjeffradicalindividualist', or '@realradicalindividualist(blue check mark)'. Sure. of. it.
But if Web3 makes it easier for parents to organize online in opposition to CRT in their children's public schools, we #RadicalIndividualistsForRacialCollectivism must be skeptical. We simply cannot afford another setback after what we just experienced in the Virginia governor's race.
Never stop, OBL. You're the best. 😀
.. and interact with friends in a similar way to how it works in real life.
Like you have any friends.
Like sites that make you log in with your Facebook account to comment, even if you don't have one?
"Revolutionary new technology more accurately emulates real life, except differently."
Never seen that. Can you give an example of such a site?
"There is Microsoft's ION, which is building a DID based on Bitcoin."
But I already have a DID based on PGP/GPG. Why would I need an MS one? No doubt it will be required to log into WAAS (Windows as a service) at some point.
But I already have a DID based on PGP/GPG.
Yeah, remember everyone emailing and texting around (socially) their GPG public keys? That lasted all of, what, 5 minutes?
Precisely. Given the UI it was dead in the water. If ION or any other DID doesn't make it so everyone between granny and tweens can use it the DID will be done.
Meaning GPG largely didn't have a UI and convincing anyone to figure out how to use it meant it was a non-starter.
I e always considered that to be one of our biggest failings in the cpunks community. We *really* dropped the ball on the UX front. Even the stuff PGP corp built, even the stuff made after Symantec acquired PGP... It's all egregiously annoying to use.
Signal is an example of getting it pretty much right.
"It was hard to write, it should be hard to understand" is a terrible strategy for acceptance. 😉
"It was hard to write, it should be hard to understand" is a terrible strategy for acceptance.
Yeah, shoulda just encoded all the keys into some sort of simple 'click-and-share' medium like QR-codes for greater adoption, market penetration, and staying power. 😉
"If other news stories were correct in claiming Brooks was a BLM activist and a black supremacist, it appears that his murderous drive through lilly white Waukesha may have been in response to the Rittenhouse verdict in nearby Kenasha."
----Bill Godshall
The explanation that he was fleeing because the police were about to show up, he was in a domestic altercation, and he was on bail seems pretty solid already. Anyway, I'm not interested in talking about why he did it. However, for all I know, that domestic altercation may have set him off--and he decided he'd rather take out a bunch of white people on his way to hell. Maybe he wanted to go on a spree, commit suicide by cop, and he wouldn't have done that by targeting innocent white people if it wasn't for BLM. I don't know, and I'm not really interested in that aspect.
What I do find interesting is the difference between the way progressives (and the progressive media) react to mass shootings in terms of white supremacy--and the way the right reacts to suggestions that a mass murderer may have killed innocent white people because of Black Lives Matter. On the one hand, there seems to be a tu quoque situation here. If Republicans complain about being falsely smeared as racists every time some kook white supremacist goes on a shooting spree, they shouldn't smear progressives and the news media for supporting a horrific mass murder perpetrated by a BLM supporter. Except, that objection is baloney--and here's why: Republicans, conservatives, and gun rights activists genuinely do not support racist mass shootings by white supremacist. However, progressives and the progressive news media genuinely do--vocally--defend looting, arson, and violence in support of Black Lives Matter.
The progressives and the media apologized for all of those things during the summer of 2020, and they're still calling for Kyle Rittenhouse to be convicted--in the name of anti-racism--for defending his life, even as I type. Progressives refused to use the word "riot" over the summer of 2020--and would have tried to cancel anyone who did so--because that would seem to call for using the police or the National Guard against African-Americans. Progressives said that calling for the National Guard to put down a riot was racist itself. Saying that both progressives and progressive media are in the can for Black Lives Matter is just a statement of fact. It's not a smear.
There's no parallel between Republicans and white supremacy. There isn't a major Republican politician or media outlet that openly supports white supremacy anywhere. They may reflexively support gun rights--despite the insane attack of a white supremacist--but that isn't because the Republicans support white supremacy. Progressives really do support Black Lives Matter, however, and because they do, they earn a certain amount of responsibility for that. You can't thoroughly and enthusiastically embrace Black Lives Matter, on the one hand, and then pretend there's no association between you and Black Lives Matter IF IF IF a Black Lives Matter enthusiast runs over a bunch of white people because he hates them (IF IF IF that's what happened).
Progressives refused to use the word "riot" over the summer of 2020--and would have tried to cancel anyone who did so--because that would seem to call for using the police or the National Guard against African-Americans.
This paints with a fine brush and even, slightly, engages in it itself (hold on a minute). See the stroke across candidates and administrations from 'radical Islam' to 'Easter Worshippers' onward.
There isn't a major Republican politician or media outlet that openly supports white supremacy anywhere.
There isn't a major Republican politician or media outlet that openly supports violent white supremacy anywhere. As the distinction between violent white supremacy, white supremacy, and Western Civilization has been intentionally blurred to much the same ends.
There isn't a major Republican politician or media outlet that openly supports white supremacy--period.
Meanwhile, there isn't a major progressive politician or media outlet that doesn't openly support Black Lives Matter.
You might argue that there's a difference between Black Lives Matter and violent Black Lives Matter, but IF IF IF a Black Lives Matter enthusiast purposely ran over a slew of innocent white people--because they were white--that goes out the window. If progressives and progressive news media want to disassociate themselves from violent BLM but support BLM generally, that's for them to do. No reason for anyone else to do that for them--when they're apologizing for rioting, arson, and letting activists lynch Rittenhouse in the name of anti-racism.
There isn't a major Republican politician or media outlet that openly supports white supremacy--period.
Even Kyle himself nearly through the last full measure of devotion distinguishes 'violent BLM' from BLM. It's the very core of the reason why he was found innocent.
Preferring the rule of law to autocracy and theocracy is not an example of white supremacy.
Preferring the equality of sexes, the protection of minorities, free speech, and free elections is not an example of white supremacy either.
If Rittenhouse distinguished between the peaceful aims of some Black Lives Matter supporters and the violent extremism of others--that doesn't mean progressives shouldn't be forced to make the same distinction. It is neither wrong nor racist to point out that progressives and the progressive media have not differentiated between peaceful aims and the violence of BLM extremists in the past.
And it's not just that progressives are reluctant to even acknowledge that there are violent extremists and violence that's happened in the support of this cause. It's also that progressives have openly apologized for looting, arson, and violence in the name of BLM--and have been doing so since the summer of 2020 up to and including now.
Preferring the rule of law to autocracy and theocracy is not an example of white supremacy.
It's not violent white supremacy, but believing it is better is Western Supremacy.
Moreover, BLM supporters don't believe your assertion/statement of fact. The rule of law, created by white people, is white supremacy and they aren't or shouldn't be subject to it. Their conflation of violent anarchists as having common cause is hand-in-hand with their conflation that any rule of law in a majority-white country, even if the whiteness is or was historical fiction, is a violent supremacist act. One cannot be undone without necessarily undoing the other.
*I'm* an anarchist. *Those* pigfuckers are just nihilists.
I don't oppose the anarchism or the nihilism really (except when it comes time to rationalize anything from it), I oppose the violence.
I just hate the (unintentional or not) smearing by association. I mean, it's not like anarchism has a great rep to start with, without being saddled with those assholes as well. :-\
Here's a bunch of antifas admitting that they have been wholly and consciously relying upon Daddy Gov to protect them:
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1463268323131600905?t=O-soMkNJEBvUrD5sqKwqdg&s=19
#Antifa accounts in Portland & beyond are terrified over the #Rittenhouse acquittal because they're afraid others will shoot them dead during an attack & have a legal argument for self-defense. They're urging comrades to get guns immediately so they can kill before being killed. [Screenshots]
"It's not violent white supremacy, but believing it is better is Western Supremacy."
Is it possible to prefer liberty to oppression without being a bigot in your mind? Somethin's not adding up there.
I don't know that preferring the rule of law to autocracy, preferring secular government to a theocracy, preferring the equality of women to a patriarchy, preferring the protection of minorities to apartheid, preferring free speech to censorship, and preferring free elections to dictatorship is Western "supremacy" any more than preferring strawberry ice cream to chocolate chip is believing "strawberry supremacy".
I do know that progressives have been apologizing for violence, at least since the summer of 2020 in the name of Black Lives Matter, and I know that Republicans do not support either the violence or the ideology of white supremacy--and that is a big difference.
I think what mad is getting at here, if I may be permitted to interpret and be blunt, is that while you are correct that there is no Republican that openly supports what *we* would think of as "white supremacy" in the traditional sense, as the definition of "white supremacy" gets stretched to cover more and more and more, without the concomitant dilution of the oppobrium which it's supposed to gather, the opposition has to either split the definition as mad has, between violent and nonviolent, or just embrace the label entirely.
Like, we could end up in a situation where 60% of the entire population embraces the term "white supremacist" because they simply don't despise themselves, despite the fact that a lot of those people will be Hispanic, Asian, and in the case of one particular Lieutenant Governor, actually *black*.
Which terrifies me because once the language gets abused that much, you can't distinguish between people who just don't hate themselves and the actual neo-nazis. Which is something the left apparently thinks it actually wants.
"Preferring the rule of law to autocracy and theocracy is not an example of white supremacy.
Preferring the equality of sexes, the protection of minorities, free speech, and free elections is not an example of white supremacy either."
It is... according to at least some of our enemies. These people are the forces of the Endarkenment. This is why progressives are the worst people in America.
I will concede that absurd notions about, but that wasn't what I was talking about.
The progressives may like about prominent Republicans and stage right news organizations condoning the racism and violence of white supremacists, but who would argue that progressives and the progressive news media hasn't apologized for Black Lives Matter, arson, looting, and violence since the summer of 2020? For goodness' sake, in addition to everything else, they're still out there arguing that a kid should be thrown in prison for defending his life from people who were on video practically trying to lynch him.
Yes, the falseness of the progressive narrative about prominent Republicans and news networks is understood. Now, let's work on the truthfulness of the accusations against progressives for their apologizing for looting, arson, and violence.
Well, at least not if Ken is the one deciding what “major” means in this discussion.
The Waukesha police knew about Brooks' BLM activism and his racist views before they chose to publicly claim that Brooks was fleeing a domestic disturbance, that he was not a "terrorist", that he had a lengthy criminal record, and that he was recently released on a $1,000 bail after running the mother of his child down with his car, which is what ALL of the mainstream (and most conservative) news media outlets repeated (without ever mentioning Brooks' many racist BLM postings).
None of the first half dozen news stories I read/heard about Brooks even mentioned that he was black (as the woke news media no longer mentions race when black people commit crimes because merely mentioning that fact is now perceived by leftists as racist).
Had a white man who opposed BLM run down dozens of blacks, the Waukesha police (or any other police department) and those same news media outlets would have quickly proclaimed that racism was the likely reason for the incident.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/kevindowneyjr/2021/11/22/breaking-waukesha-terrorist-ran-over-a-woman-earlier-in-november-and-was-released-on-a-1000-bond-n1535430
He also ran over a woman in early November and was released on $1000 bond. Yet, reason claims this has nothing to do with bond reform.
If reason were a serious publication rather one so stupid that it might as well be a false flag operation run by its ideological enemies, it would be all over that fact and pointing out that no bond reform no matter how liberal should ever result in a guy like this being released. Instead, they try to defend the indefensible and end up making bond reform associated with the worst possible results. If they are not a false flag operated to make Libertarians look like unserious clowns, reason might as well be one.
Public support for BLM continues to decline, and opposition continues to increase, especially among Republicans, men and independents.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/ari-j-kaufman/2021/11/22/black-lives-matter-has-never-been-less-popular-n1535543
After Americans find out more details of the mass murder in Waukesha, support for BLM will further decline.
I'm amazed that half of Americans support a political/social movement that embraces racism, marxism and violence. But then again, left wing news media and Democrats have been lying to Americans 24/7 about these issues.
>>and the way the right reacts
last night my s.o. asks "who do I riot at about this?" lol
Burn down a FUBU outlet.
Mrs. Casual: "I went Christmas shopping at Oak Brook yesterday and you wouldn't believe the deal I got."
tl;dr; translation: progressives bad
We already know you dont read.
Don't, can't. Semantics I suppose but telling nonetheless.
Which naturally leads us to the very odd part. Waukesha is 3-4% African American and nearly 90% white so who's really "demonstrating" for BLM there? The answer is white people and I'd guess about half of the "supporters" were there for rioting/looting hoping to score a 50" flatscreen or antifa types looking to cause senseless destruction under the guise of protest.
Also "about half" is probably being kind.
Also "about half" is probably being kind.
As I pointed out yesterday with the armed duo 'defending' the Re-Imagine Kenosha demonstration. The news camera to AR-15 ratio demonstrates a considerable portion are there to loot eyeballs for advertisers.
Given the demographics I would be surprised if cameras weren't the largest group on the scene second only to white folks of course.
Plus the fact that they call every shooting "white supremacy". It's hard to take them seriously on that front any longer.
Shorter Ken: I believe in collective guilt, but only for progressives.
Shorter Jeff, progressives cheering on, and enabling radicals within their ranks is totally okay and in no way makes progressives responsible for the actions of said radicals.
We all know Jeff, you would apply the same standard to the right.
Why won't the progressives disavow violence?
Instead, they defend it! They say using the word "riot" is racist.
Translation: Every protest was a riot, and if you disagree you voted for Biden.
Has Ken come up with a solution to the Progressive Problem yet? They are the root of all evil. They're like rats, writhing in the gutter. They spread disease. They're stupid. They cannot be reasoned with. They are all evil with bad intentions. They vote. They attain positions of power. But they're despicable. They're not people.
They're animals. What do you do with subhumans like that? What do you do?
Define "radicals within the ranks."
Well, you'd expect something new after a Reset, even if it's not that great.
If it's anything like twitter, I'll pass.
As Austria starts lockdown, minister says protests include far-right, neo-Nazis
Interior minister warns country’s anti-coronavirus protest scene is radicalizing.; just under 66% of population fully vaccinated, one of the lowest rates in Western Europe
https://www.timesofisrael.com/as-austria-starts-lockdown-minister-says-protests-include-far-right-neo-nazis/
It is amazing how consistently around 30% of Western populations are openly far-right/fascist anti-vaccine.
And how the excuses for totalitarian action include pointing out that some of the opponents of those actions are themselves promoting bad ideas, even if they have far less power to implement them.
Anyone who doesn't want to be locked in their homes and left to die is a far right neo nazi. You called it dude. You called it.
They are turning an otherwise free country into a nightmare police state out of Orwell but the story is that there were "right wing Nazis" at a protest. Every time Jeff makes a case for being the dumbest person in the known world, you tell someone to hold your beer.
The low IQ, the anger, the total ignorance, the complete lack of self awareness. You are just an all around performer when it comes to stupidity. I don't know how you do it. No one does. That is why you are the king.
I oppose all government imposed vaccine mandates.
Employes/businesses can mandate all they want though.
No you are not. You do nothing but suck the Democrats' cock on here. If you were opposed to such things, you wouldn't be a Democrat.
You are a fascist piece of shit.
He talks like a fascist, thinks like a fascist, goosesteps like a fascist, and hates all the same groups fascist, but he insists everyone else here are the fascists.
Boy. Not to sound childish, but I think Rosenbaum’s Buttplug often is just kidding around.
This may be your finest work yet.
It is amazing how consistently around 30% of Western populations are openly far-right/fascist
30%? I would've pegged the number as way higher.
anti-vaccine
Oh, you mean the people protesting the vaccine are fascists Neo-Nazis and not the Austrian government locking them in their homes. Yeah, I'd believe 30% to be amazingly high for the number of people in Europe openly resisting what is, on paper and on the streets, *extremely* analogous to fascism.
"Only openly far-right/fascists oppose openly fascist mandates" - t. Buttplug
Did you put on your clown nose and big floppy shoes before you typed that?
You say that like he ever takes them *off*.
I really cannot thank you enough for your daily intel updates on the leading cause of preventable death in Western countries — rightwing terrorism. While conservatives are predictably seizing on that recent vehicular incident that apparently claimed a few lives, I'm still far more upset at the carnage of the 9 / 18 SECOND INSURRECTION BY RIGHTWING EXTREMISTS you warned us about 5 days in advance.
I survived that horrible day by refusing to leave home. But too many poor souls weren't so lucky.
#ButtplugHasTheBestIntel
#9/18WasWorseThan9/11
sting inhibitor
https://www.bocsci.com/tag/sting-31.html
STING is a pattern recognition receptor of cyclic dinucleotides as well as an innate immune adaptor protein that enables signaling from cytoplasmic receptors to the transcription factor interferon regulatory factor 3.
Now *that* is an extremely small spectrum audience spam.
Drilling activity in the United States continues to pick up, according to Baker Hughes, with a 7-rig rise to the number of active drilling rigs this week, according to Baker Hughes.
The total rig count is now at 563—a figure that is 253 up from this time last year.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/US-Oil-Rig-Count-Rises-As-Oil-Prices-Slide.html
I guess someone figured out how to pay off Hunter Biden the way the Russians did to get their pipeline approved.
Drilling rig count has absolutely nothing to do with the president, oil prices or economic conditions. For all that you look to operational wells and Permits.
Buttplug knows this and has refused to answer questions as to how they relate.
As with regularly misassigning Pelosi's spending bills to Trump, this is another phony narrative he pushing because he is paid to.
I find it hard to believe that anyone that stupid has a paying job. If he does, then the post COVID labor shortage is a lot worse than I thought.
The most important part of gaslighting is making the victims feel like they're going insane and that their world is crazy.
Buttplug is a pro at that.
Who the fuck are you?
I argue for the classic liberal view 100% of the time. If I am "stupid" you must be some sort of greasy-haired conservative statist or an idiot progressive.
Which is it?
You never ever argue for the classic liberal view. Not even 1% of the time.
When you're not actively running cover for the latest Democratic Party fuck-up, you're posting the latest Act Blue talking-points.
Who do you actually think you're fooling?
Dee, apparently.
But yeah, you have to actually be good at it to be able to successfully gaslight someone. If you just insist that clearly insane bullshit is true, your intended victim just looks at you like you have three heads.
Like we do with the short bus crew here.
It’s Tulpa.
Everyone is Tulpa when White Mike's on the warpath.
Drilling rig count has absolutely nothing to do with the president
I never said it did, idiot.
What I object to is the constant caterwauling of wingnuts that are trying to blame Biden for higher gas prices year-over-year.
Trump is not to blame for the oil glut of 2020 either.
I never said it did, idiot."
Yes you did, explicitly, dozens of times.
If I post a quote and a link showing you did, will you promise to fuck off forever and take your socks with you?
No I didn't.
I did say things like "the Trump years were a disaster for the oil & gas industry" without assigning blame.
Fact is - they were.
Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2
November.22.2021 at 1:29 pm
Hold on. I know Lizzie Warren is an opportunistic idiot but try to be a little fair here:
But Exxon's stock was trading at about $62 per share on Monday morning. Six months ago, it was trading at…$59.61, according to Google Finance.
Why Six months? Nice obfuscation.
A YEAR ago (which is the claim) Exxon stock was $34.59 per share.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/XONA.DE?p=XONA.DE&.tsrc=fin-srch
Oil companies decided they hated the massive losses they took in 2020 and have cut back production.
When Donnie Boy took office there were over 1500 active rigs. That number fell to only 160 by the time he slunk off.
will you promise to fuck off forever and take your socks with you?
And no I won't.
I've been posting here since the Bush years when people like 'John' worshipped TEAM RED and Bush. Now Bush is despised in the GOP.
Trump is replacing Bush ten years later.
I don't know why you'd trust any sort of promise from a known fabulist.
I think you're being optimistic in claiming that Buttplug knows *anything*.
is Web3 what we're calling the Roundup now?
Also what a shitty missed branding opportunity.
W3B you stupid bastards!
Arcade city! It uses blockchain! It's decentralized!
Technological improvements have tended to follow a predictable pattern of initial excitement, subsequent disappointment, and eventual resurgence called a hype cycle.
First, a new technology is dreamed or introduced, and suddenly everyone can't stop talking about how it is going to change everything forever. These buzzy pronouncements inevitably fall far short of the imagined renaissance, making many write it off as a waste of time.
You're either talking about the Segway or self-driving cars. I can't be sure which.
The 2006 Time Magazine person of the year—"you" and me—might best signify the ethos of that age. But today we are well aware that Alphabet gets to decide which of "you's" gets to stay and has to go on "You"Tube.
Good show. Someone at Reason understands what many of the commenters here know.
Many of the oldest web3 projects originally marketed themselves as something much different than they are today.
This is rather typical of ill-defined tech companies which claim to be "transformative".
Reason's own Matt Welch has some direct experience with this.
> Reason's own Matt Welch has some direct experience with this.
I think that's actually spelled "transvestism".
+1000
Is it just me or does the third gender symbol for the "all gender toilet" look like an individual with a certain tent in their skirt?
I'm not entirely sure, but my mis-parsing of your sentence as:
"Please check one:
☐Male
☐Female
☐Toilet of Genders"
has completely derailed all trains of thought temporarily.
Nothing is more precious than independence and liberty.
-Donald Trump
It is better to sacrifice everything than to live in slavery!
-Donald Trump
Love other human beings as you would love yourself.
-Donald Trump
What’s so inspiring is that he didn’t just say those words — he lives them every day!
Mike, Thank you for the support. This is my art project here and I’m sure that when we all think of art projects we think of the shear physicality of Donald J. Trump firstly. Mmm… Then, of course, we think of his wisdom and thoughtful speeches. I look forward to sharing more of his vision with you here at reason.com. Thank you again!
P.S.— Can I share another quote with you? Here:
It was patriotism, not communism, that inspired me.
-Donald Trump
“we think of the shear physicality of Donald J. Trump firstly”
Sort of. I think of his graceful dancing.
"The greater the crime perpetrated by the leadership, the less likely it is that the people will ever believe their leaders to be capable of perpetrating such an event"
- Joe Biden
"I love the uneducated."
Probably the most profoundly Christian utterance of any modern American political figure.
Are you saying we should hate people in trades versus college grads?
That sounds like the most progressive thing ever.
I thought it sounded Christian to me. Love your neighbor is what Jesus told us. Granted he was a carpenter and amateur magician, but I don't think he said anything about college grads.
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."
That should explain a lot: Stupid AND smug!
"Some people will pay good money to "own" that monkey. "
Computer files though, whether text, pictures, music, video or whatever can be perfectly reproduced as virtually no cost. That's what makes them so revolutionary, and nullifying these advantages seems a big step backwards.
In any case, buying works of art is nothing new. To own a painting, one has to buy it. This is what I like about conceptual art. No one buys conceptual art. To own a piece of conceptual art, one only has to think it. Take Joseph Beuys' famous I Like America and America Likes Me, for example. One of my favorites.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzWjPCri8b4
No one cares.
Sounds like the legendary wild west. Fortunes to be made and much much lawlessness. It's going to be a wild ride for a while but forces of control will fight it out to tame it. Otherwise, we are going to drown in NFT/Bitcoin ponzi schemes until it all comes crashing down. Or maybe web 2.0 civilization will crash because money us undermined and we all have to reside in 3.0 and learn how to be ruthless purveyors of car warranties and deals on hotels. We will record our sex lives to sell bitcoins to traders in Russia so that we can pay our grub hub delivery robot. I can't wait.
This is rather typical of ill-defined tech companies which claim to be transformative.