That was my first too. But WinMX was more relevant and lasted much longer.

You included memes (IPFS), and omitted important shit (DC, original Freenet), not to mention some old networks (ed2k, gnutella/G2) that went out of fashion, but are not fully extinct.

As for the future, the situation could get grim at a much lower level, as both the “file” as an ubiquitously accessible unit, and desktop computers in general as ubiquitously available and affordable hardware, are both under threat, with the latter already affected by the semi-fake partial (for now) scarcity supposedly fully caused by the AI craze.

It’s probably the cloud host of the sites themselves marking the addresses of the specific servers you use as questionable because it saw problematic traffic from them before (i.e. other subscribers from your VPN service), not what the other users theorized.

It’s one of the reasons why VPN services move to new server addresses all the time. The goal is not beating deliberate VPN blockers per se (which would be futile, since acquiring updated lists of all public VPN server addresses is trivial, and literally everyone can do it), but to reset the reputation of the servers (measured dynamically by automated systems) because that reputation always goes to shit over time.

Still waiting for specific sources for all your claims. Don’t do it for me. Do it for yourself. Winning an argument on the internet, with whatever faith, is a useless futile goal, and always was.

I thought I would trigger a higher-level discussion about the legalize in the so called democratic modern nation state. Because some of your scientific claims actually went defunct decades ago. But I guess I was wrong.

It’s a directly cited reason in a constitutional challenge to the law in March 2008.

• Not every country is Germany.
• Post-hoc rationalizations happen always anyway. No one is immune.

There’s dominant and recessive genes.

You seem to think that people missed high school biology.

Recessive genes causing defects are rare and most people don’t carry them at all. No amount of incest will will them into existing if there are no carriers. That was the obvious point about folklore, where any offspring of incest is thought of as some disfigured hobo tard.

Some nation states may require prior testing for any pair who want to become a couple (this is not just theoretical btw), using the exact same reasoning, yet most people would agree that that’s overstepping and authoritarian-adjacent. Yet, the same reasoning gets re-employed and reused to post-hoc justify continuing banning incest. Another data-point pointing to illogical hubris at play.

Feel free to site a specific study from the corpus on actual human populations, and let’s check its date, specific claims and numbers, and check the validity of process and statistical analysis.

Here is a hint: the few flawed modern studies that tried hard to find a hint of correlation about something already understated (like some type of hereditary high blood pressure, nothing close to typical folklore) didn’t get helped by the basic understanding genes like you learned them in high school. And had to speculate about theories that involve genetics topics you didn’t actually get taught at high school.

Many countries don’t actually criminalize this. In less densely populated countries it’s more likely to be illegal due to the risk of medical complications for any potential offspring. In countries like Germany, same-sex incestuous relationships are actually legal because of this.

And you ran off-topic again. And the few countries where same-sex got through usually happened because of a loophole (criminal code explicitly mentioning vaginal penetration), not the reason you hallucinated.

It being an extremely strong indicator of sexual abuse, increased medical risks for potential offspring (and their subsequent offspring, so the population at large), largely originated from the innate instinct to avoid incestuous mating shared by many other animals with biparental parenting structures. It’s not ideological in origin, it’s biological and instinctual.

You employ a lot of circular logic and “street talk” in your replies. Provide direct applicable sources. And they better not be a generic category index in some website.

Here’s an entire list: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/inbreeding

Please provide specific facts from a modern study regarding human populations, nothing from 18xx-196x studies, or “sociology” sources, or artificially inseminated animal populations (you will be surprised).

And spare me the high school genetics talk. It’s curious how you glossed over the folklore about how a bad gene will come to exist if it was never carried in the first place.

underage.

only punished in one direction

Off-topic. Criminal codes around adult incest punishes both parties.

a power-dynamic where consent cannot be guaranteed.

That’s a universal truth.

Incest is generally considered taboo

What makes it taboo, what is it precisely that is taboo, what reference ideology/statues (if any) is it based on, what is believed to be a deserved (earthly) punishment (if any) and for whom, and who has the right to enact such punishments, is what’s relevant here.

Those steps could be coherent or logically consistent or not. And that’s required before getting into a right or wrong verdict.

The laws in the modern nation state and how they come into existence fundamentally lack that logical rigor, irrespective of the topic at hand.

it’s basically high-school biology

Feel free to actually source scientific facts and concrete numbers. Maybe what is believed to be “high-school biology” is the problem. The folklore part is beliefs that defects can be born out of otherwise healthy individuals (e.g. with no carried bad genes, in high-school biology parlance). But a lot of myths leak into school influenced societal beliefs too (school is after all the state’s primary conformist tool).

I advise against siting a certain study from Croatia, which despite its already understated findings (which are laughable compared to mythical folklore beliefs) was still rife with trivial process and analytical mistakes.

Having to run to “think of the children” and mythical high-school biology, is additional indication of the weaknesses of what is already an incoherent post-hoc rationalization.

Failed logic, since that premise implies abuser-victim dynamics are the default, yet laws punish both, yielding net-zero results (net-negative in reality since punishing victims is worse than not punishing abusers). The “deterrence” arguments wouldn’t logically fly either, since deterring by punishing victims is also incoherent.

But that would be relevant if we are operating within a coherent logical framework in the first place. And western political ideologies (including communism) are based on the feelings of the plurality, or the whims of the guarding party. Which is why what’s “right”/“correct” and/or the “why” behind it is always changing from one generation to another, which is in and of itself an indication of an illogical process.

Former western (public) arguments against incest (and “inbreeding”, extending to cousin marriage) were based on fake medical/genetic/… concerns that were fully based on mythical folklore that still partially survives. But since this doesn’t fully fly today, coming up with some new fake rationalizations like the one you provided became necessary.

Note that I’m not arguing for (or against) incest (which itself is not globally fixed in definition, see cousin marriage above). I’m just showing that pretending that either position would be based on “logic” in any modern “post-christian” western ideological framework is hubris.

The only logical coherent system would have to be based on fixed (not whim-sensitive) above-human code (a la sharia law). But a “post-religion” crowd is not ready, emotionally or intellectually, to epistemologically entertain such thoughts.

No. So fair enough 🙂

Even a 20 year should know Napster saga (with all the implications involved) happened in 2001.

THIS.

All my murderer friends have moved their activities to jurisdictions where murder is allowed or tolerated.

I think CodeBerg should push for giving Vibe Coders the death penalty, to make sure deterrence will work.

Let’s discourage user transparency and AI disclosure

OMG that’s a great move.

The word “acknowledged” seems to have been dropped from the title.

I’m not a close (or any kind of) follower of these dramas, but judging by the kind of unhinged “fans” PieFed seemed to attract, and the expressed reason(s) for that attraction, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if trying to appease them for months is taking a heavy toll.

it’s not about robocalls.

Nothing was ever really about “le evil pedophiles” or “protecting children” either. Yet, using that excuse seems to work wonders with the gullible masses, including many people here, I would imagine.

Did you mean to direct this at me?

I denounce Zionism. Some Zionists are not as bad as others.

I support Zionism. Some Zionists are worse than others.

You seem to gloss over what’s important (the first stipulation), by arguing for the latter stipulation, which is on the surface true, no matter how formulated. Although, the “not as bad as” formulation makes it clearer that this is a simple case of relative privation.

Mainstream politics in the west, left and right, supports Zionism. And that’s what’s most relevant. Everything else can be assumed a diversion, unless otherwise proven.

The Israel project was misguided from the beginning, but it could have been justified in the immediate aftermath of the holocaust. Now?

European Jews* grabbing land and displacing people in another continent to create a new faux-nation, all facilitated by the British empire (with help from the French, and the already mentioned soviets) is “justified” because they suffered a holocaust! at the hands of Nazis who actually had an agreement with Zionists before the war (yes, Nazi Germany itself was on the list of facilitators, together with soviets)!

I’m not necessarily attacking you personally btw. I’m just showing that your positioning, common among some mainstream leftists today, is neither historically informed, nor logically, intellectually, or morally consistent. This positioning, precise in its “filtering”, is designed specifically to score points in the mainstream right-left political theater. A theater that has staunch Zionists in every faction, to the point where Zionism was often the easiest uniting factor one can point to.

That is not to say that all apparent opposition to Zionism in mainstream politics is fake. But whatever genuine opposition that exists out there, is an opposition to factions within Zionism, not Zionism itself. And it’s often an extension of local/national factional fights within that theater.

* Many were atheist and non-religious cultural Jews btw.

And the mask is off.

Massacres in 2024 are abhorrent and a very big deal. Massacres in 1948 were unfortunate, preferably not mentioned at all.
Population displacement is abhorrent and criminal in 2024. But it was “understandable” in 1948.
Colonialism in 1948 was okay whenever it had good enough red paint!

Many of you are not against Zionism. You are specifically against the Jabotinskyists leading the Zionist entity’s scene today. And the opposition itself is not that genuine. It’s just a part of the moral posturing arsenal for scoring points in the right-left political theater.

“Nazi” is not a generic synonym for “bad person” or “mass murderer” or “genocider”. I know it’s common place, but this is the laziness I’m talking about. If we start using every word by its generic connotations or goodness/badness, then these words will no longer serve as a distinctive epistemological tool.

And there is actually a historical irony here, in the context of doing this with Zionism. The soviet union and its bolsheviks actually supported the Zionist entity in its first decade of existence, and actively so. Massacres against villagers and other events from that era didn’t cause any deterrence to that support. They even went as far as making Arab communists work as what would effectively be described today as Mossad agents. This alignment only started to shift circa ~1958.

Should we call the soviets from that era “Nazis”?

If we want to principally oppose Zionism, and we should be, then we need to be educated, informed, and diligent against falling for traps like those from the mainstream right-left political theater.