▶ No.1045752>>1047157
▶ No.1045753>>1045756 >>1045765 >>1045943 >>1046875 >>1046922 >>1047083 >>1063101
big corporations owning the Internet != communism
copyright != communism
▶ No.1045756>>1045763
>>1045753
>copyright != communism
It is unnecessary totalitarianism which goes against freedom of speech and thought. Might as well be communism or at the very least Orwellianism. (((Copyright laws))) should be abolished.
▶ No.1045763>>1045768 >>1045775 >>1063098 >>1065231
>>1045756
Without copyright Free Software couldn't exist.
Fuck off, retard.
▶ No.1045765
>>1045753
What? I thought everything I didn't like was communism.
▶ No.1045767>>1045780
Newfag here. At first glance all these altnets seem compelling. Which one is the best one?
▶ No.1045768>>1045769 >>1045775
>>1045763
Bullshit. Copyleft is a reaction to copyright.
If copyright was abolished everything would eventually turn into FOSS.
Parts of the Windows source code have already been leaked. The reason Windows isn't FOSS yet is because Microsoft holds copyright on every little antique part of the Windows source code.
>protecting copyright in its current form
All freetards need to be shot at this point.
▶ No.1045769>>1045779
>>1045768
>Copyleft is a reaction to copyright.
Copyleft is only possible because of copyright.
>If copyright was abolished everything would eventually turn into FOSS.
lol
>The reason Windows isn't FOSS yet is because Microsoft holds copyright on every little antique part of the Windows source code.
lol
>All freetards need to be shot at this point.
So you are a BSDnigger? How many times do you have to get cucked until you realize that big corporations don't give back?
▶ No.1045775>>1045777 >>1045779
>>1045763
You mean libre software? It wouldn't need to exist then, retard. You can either keep your software open sourced or closed sourced. Open source software would still exist.
>>1045768
>everything would eventually turn into FOSS.
It wouldn't.
▶ No.1045777>>1045778 >>1045944
>>1045775
>It wouldn't need to exist then, retard.
Free Software can only exist if you can enforce the freedoms. Without copyright you can't prevent niggers from taking your shit and shitting all over it.
>Open source software would still exist.
Yes. Open source would still exist. But Open source is garbage.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
▶ No.1045778>>1045779 >>1045783
>>1045777
Freetards would still exist. Libre software just wouldn't be enforceable, which is a GOOD THING since it's just another anti-freedom movement just like copyrights. You'd already have the freedom to distribute and alter software without the consent of the original creator or the government. You don't need access to it's source code or force people to give their source.
▶ No.1045779>>1045783
>>1045769
>So you are a BSDnigger? How many times do you have to get cucked until you realize that big corporations don't give back?
he said while sucking systemdick and giving in to corporate control.
Communist always shout how anti-capitalistic they are while getting big donations from hypercapitalists.
What most Linux users want is a good desktop OS. What the corporations want is a server hosting OS and nothing more.
>>1045775
>It wouldn't.
The source code would leak eventually, no one would be ordered to take it down and you'd be able to use it.
It just wouldn't be the stallman kikes dream.
>Without copyright you can't prevent niggers from taking your shit and shitting all over it.
*taking a copy of your shit
Why would I care? It's not like it'd be theirs for eternity (like it's now). Sooner or later the source code would be published or leaked (The bigger the group making it, the higher chance that'd happen.) or they die and the source code is lost and everyone will give up their abandonware.
>>1045778
This.
▶ No.1045780>>1045782 >>1045825 >>1045986 >>1046873 >>1050467
>>1045767
Tor is the easiest to use and it still lets you browse normal net. You can effortlessly set up your own anonymous websites. For now it's the best choice.
IPFS is basically torrenting turned into websites. It's not anonymous at all and it's vulnerable to "muh wrongthink" and ISP bans/fines in oppressive countries like Germany. But it's good for decentralized normie browsing.
I2P is a convoluted mess.
GNUnet is a convoluted mess.
Freenet is broken by 3-letter agencies so it's no longer safe.
Zeronet and beaker browser are a meme.
Retroshare is literally an email/social media/IM hybrid. It's a clusterfuck.
▶ No.1045781
Surprised I haven't heard arguments that this is a good thing. Neutering companies like Facebook and pushing users into how the web was meant to be - hosting your own websites. Also, imageboards aren't big enough to be affected by this.
▶ No.1045782
>>1045780
Thancc
>Freenet is broken by 3-letter agencies so it's no longer safe.
Fucking glowers :(
▶ No.1045783>>1045785 >>1045811
>>1045778
>Libre software just wouldn't be enforceable, which is a GOOD THING
>having freedom is BAD
fuck off, corporate shill
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html
>>1045779
Wow. Calling you a BSDnigger really triggered you.
▶ No.1045785>>1045787
>>1045783
I'm not on BSD, kike.
▶ No.1045786
>waaah waah waaaaaah muh free web
No one actually cares, faggot. I would appreciate being forced to do something actually productive.
I just want to watch the modern cancer known as the (((web))) burn down. JavaShit, CSS, HTML, PHP, Node.js, Python, all those things are CANCER and they power the majority of websites.
It all needs to burn down.
>>> ACCELERATE >>>
▶ No.1045787>>1045790
>>1045785
Why are you so triggered then? It sound to me like you are butthurt about corporations taking your code and giving nothing back
It must be pretty humiliating getting cucked that hard.
▶ No.1045788>>1045790 >>1045813
>copyright is bad
t. people who have never made anything worth a shit.
▶ No.1045790>>1045792 >>1045813
>>1045787
>Canonical (corporation) nearly killed the Wayland project and GUI software interoperability on GNU/Linux with Mir.
>World is full of Android phones running Linux. And even through the foundation is GPL, the entire device is totally non-standardized (Samsung etc.) and can only run an OS (Android, Android or Android) specifically tailored to it which is full of Google (corporation) botnet by default and removing it is like removing botnet from Chrome (not happening apart from blocking simple call-homes).
It must be pretty humiliating getting cucked that hard.
>>1045788
We're not saying it's bad, we're saying it's bad in it's current form. Like people still profiting from books written a century ago.
▶ No.1045792>>1045794
>>1045790
>It must be pretty humiliating getting cucked that hard.
Sorry m8, my Android smartphone doesn't have any Google services installed. This is possible thanks to the GPL so I don't get what you are talking about.
>We're not saying it's bad
You do
>it's bad in it's current form
No shit.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html
▶ No.1045794>>1045795
>>1045792
>He's forced to run Android
>This is possible thanks to the GPL
▶ No.1045795>>1045796
▶ No.1045796>>1045797
>>1045795
>Another distro is another OS
▶ No.1045797>>1045798
▶ No.1045798>>1045799
>>1045797
>Alpha version. Calls don't work, etc
That's what I call a phone OS.
▶ No.1045799>>1045803
>>1045798
Nice goalpost shifting.
▶ No.1045801
Download Freenet and then download Frost.
▶ No.1045803>>1045808
>>1045799
I'm not shifting the goal. If you want your phone and it's components to be usable, you're forced to run Android and all phones are non-standardized because no UEFI/BIOS.
Phone users are in no way free.
▶ No.1045808>>1045867
>>1045803
>hardware is unfree
>checkmate atheists
kys retard. also why are you saging?
▶ No.1045811
>>1045783
>having freedom is BAD
It's not freedom you fucking retard. If you're literally forced to disclose source codes of your software that's the OPPOSITE OF FREEDOM. Are you this dense? You have the freedom to reverse engineer the software. That's all you need. Think with your fucking peanut of a brain for one second.
▶ No.1045813>>1045814 >>1045815
>>1045788
If your product was worth anything you wouldn't have to resort to a fucking nanny state forcing people to pay for something that has no value or has already been released to the public. Find an alternative way to monetize your shit without infringing basic human rights.
>>1045790
Copyright is bad in any form. Intellectual property should only be protected if it's private, as in you have the only copy. Something that's given away or sold (compiled software and media) is no longer privately owned and shouldn't fall under any kind of protection.
▶ No.1045814>>1045822
>>1045813
>Copyright is bad in any form.
There is always the fear some kike or gook may trample over you and claim to be the producer of the work if you're not a big corp but time may prove you're right.
▶ No.1045815>>1045816 >>1045822
>>1045813
>copyright is about monetization
>Copyright is bad in any form
Based RMS disagrees with you: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html
▶ No.1045816>>1045817 >>1045818
>>1045815
STOP SPAMMING, FUCKING KIKE
▶ No.1045817>>1045819
>>1045816
sage negated :^)
▶ No.1045818>>1045819
>>1045816
>getting triggered because someone disagrees with him
unbased
▶ No.1045819>>1045820
>>1045818
If you had an argument, you would write it down instead of telling us to read a book written by a kike, communist scum.
>>1045817
I have no idea why I saged :^)
▶ No.1045820>>1045821
▶ No.1045822>>1045824
>>1045814
>claim to be the producer of the work if you're not a big corp
But this doesn't matter. If you've already sold your work then it's irrelevant.
>>1045815
>RMS
I'm not going to read his autistic rantings. But yes, copyright is bad and will be until you find me a solution which won't stop people from freely distributing or editing and distributing information or objects that they were given/sold without government or corporate interference.
▶ No.1045824>>1045831
>>1045822
>I'm not going to read his autistic rantings
10/10 argument
>copyright is bad and will be until you find me a solution which won't stop people from freely distributing or editing and distributing information or objects that they were given/sold without government or corporate interference.
<what is copyleft?
▶ No.1045825
▶ No.1045828
>>1045751 (OP)
useful
would be moreso with some descriptions and background on some of the programmes and opinions on them.
▶ No.1045831>>1045834 >>1065104
>>1045824
Copyleft only exists because copyright exists. Without copyright everything would be copyleft by default. So copyleft is just a term made up to protect free software in this unjust world where copyright laws exist. Besides, only public domain is good and permissive licenses are close enough. GPL is literally the same shit as a proprietary license since it FORCES people to disclose source code. So it's not free, like the RMS claims. I don't use an Orwellian dictionary where free = force people to disclose secrets.
▶ No.1045833
GIVE ME A WORKING LINK TO NANOCHAN THEN YOU NIGGERS
▶ No.1045834>>1045835
>>1045831
>Without copyright everything would be copyleft by default.
Wrong. Copyleft can't exist without copyright.
https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/
>Copyleft is a general method for making a program (or other work) free (in the sense of freedom, not “zero price”), and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well.
How would you enforce this without copyright?
>Besides, only public domain is good and permissive licenses are close enough.
If you like being cucked, that is.
>GPL is literally the same shit as a proprietary license since it FORCES people to disclose source code.
Proprietary software is harmful.
https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary.html
>So it's not free, like the RMS claims.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
>“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”. We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.
▶ No.1045835>>1045836
>>1045834
you're misunderstanding me. Without copyright, everything would behave like copyleft because people are free to share information without government intervention.
>making a program (or other work) free (in the sense of freedom, not “zero price”)
Listen. If copyright doesn't exist, then this right here would be the actual law. It wouldn't be called "copyleft" because the freedom of speech and information sharing already covers this. Anything you share to the public is no longer under your control nor should the government force any control over it.
>requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well.
This is not a requirement unless you release your modified version to the public. In which case you're back on step 1, the public is allowed to do anything they want with it. If you use it privately, for example a modified BSD/Linux kernel on your servers, you should not be forced to release the source code of any of that.
>run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.
That's exactly what I'm saying you should be able to do. Without copyright laws, nothing would prevent you from doing any of this so the "free licenses" wouldn't need to exist. The reason this sentence exist is *because* current laws are against freedom of speech and personal ownership.
▶ No.1045836>>1045844
>>1045835
>Without copyright, everything would behave like copyleft
No. Copyleft requires "all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well".
If you don't have copyright, you can't enforce this. Some nigger could take your program, modify it and never release the source code.
>Listen. If copyright doesn't exist, then this right here would be the actual law.
no
>This is not a requirement unless you release your modified version to the public.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
>Without copyright laws, nothing would prevent you from doing any of this
Refer to freedom #1 and #3:
>The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
>The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
>In order for freedoms 1 and 3 (the freedom to make changes and the freedom to publish the changed versions) to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software. Obfuscated “source code” is not real source code and does not count as source code.
▶ No.1045844>>1045849
>>1045836
>Some nigger could take your program, modify it and never release the source code.
Good. That's his right and it shouldn't be infringed.
>no
Yes, for fucks sake. If there's no law that prevents you from doing something then you're allowed to do it.
>to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software.
This is utterly false. You're free to decompile or reverse engineer software. But sure, having source code is a good thing but it shouldn't be required by law.
▶ No.1045849>>1045855
>>1045844
>Good. That's his right and it shouldn't be infringed.
BSD nigger spotted
>Yes, for fucks sake. If there's no law that prevents you from doing something then you're allowed to do it.
But copyleft requires you to do something and it enforces that thanks to copyright. So if you don't have copyright, you can't have copyleft. But you said "If copyright doesn't exist, then this right here would be the actual law.". You are wrong.
>This is utterly false.
It is literally the definition of Free Software.
>You're free to decompile or reverse engineer software.
LOOOL. Why don't you go ahead and reverse engineer windows? Kys retard.
▶ No.1045855>>1045859
>>1045849
>Why don't you go ahead and reverse engineer windows?
Because it's illegal, you fucking Orwellian retard.
>definition of Free Software.
"Free software" is just as against freedom as proprietary software.
>You are wrong.
Only in the part about requiring source code, which I'm against anyways. Everything else applies.
>BSD nigger spotted
>t. Orwellian nigger
▶ No.1045859>>1045936
>>1045855
>Because it's illegal
It's more likely that you are a gigantic LARPer that doesn't understand that reverse engineering is hard.
>"Free software" is just as against freedom as proprietary software.
You still don't understand Free Software. The free applies to the software itself.
There are 4 freedoms that have to be provided or else it isn't Free Software. The GPL is a license ensuring those freedoms.
The GPL isn't a permissive license. If you want a permissive license choose BSD/MIT.
>Only [...]
Took you long enough for admitting that you are wrong.
▶ No.1045867>>1045868 >>1045870
>>1045808
>thread about decentralized imageboards
>devolves into yet another judean peoples front/peoples front of judea tier argument over GNU vs BSD
>why are you saging?
You've posted RMS. We've already read it. We think hes an idiot now fuck off.
▶ No.1045868
>>1045867
>We
who? sage negated btw :^)
▶ No.1045870
>>1045867
>shit thread devolves into shitfest
Don't make shit threads then.
▶ No.1045892>>1045894
She devised a monopoly where the London printing guild would get a complete monopoly on all printing in England, in exchange for her censors determining what was fit to print beforehand. It was a very lucrative monopoly for the guild, who would be working hard to maintain the monopoly and the favor of the Queen’s censors. This merger of corporate and governmental powers turned out to be effective in suppressing free speech and political-religious dissent.
The monopoly was awarded to the London Company of Stationers on May 4, 1557. It was called copyright.
It was widely successful as a censorship instrument. Working with the industry to suppress free speech worked, in contrast to the French attempt in the earlier 1500s to ban all printing by decree. The Stationers worked as a private censorship bureau, burning unlicensed books, impounding or destroying monopoly-infringing printing presses, and denying politically unsuitable material the light of day. Only in doubtful cases did they care to consult the Queen’s censors for advice on what was allowed and what was not. Mostly, it was quite apparent after a few initial consultations.
There was obviously a lust for reading, and the monopoly was very lucrative for the Stationers. As long as nothing politically destabilizing was in circulation, the common people were allowed their entertainment. It was a win-win for the repressive Queen and for the Stationers with a lucrative monopoly on their hands.
https://falkvinge.net/2011/02/02/history-of-copyright-part-2-tudoric-feud/
▶ No.1045894
▶ No.1045908>>1045933
Fuck linux, we need a new OS called Stalldows or Stallix
▶ No.1045911>>1046034
▶ No.1045933
>>1045908
GUIX, which uses Hurd, can be the first distribution that can simply be called "GNU". It is the completion of the GNU Project, wholly GNU.
▶ No.1045936>>1045938 >>1046921
>>1045859
>doesn't understand that reverse engineering is hard.
I do understand. But I don't see why you would want to reverse engineer windows when you can just contribute to ReactOS by using the existing already distributed files and sources which are currently illegal to use. Windows is a dying system. Besides, if anyone cared enough they'd take time to reverse engineer it no matter what.
>The free applies to the software itself.
If the law is forcing people to do something then it applies to people.
>admitting that you are wrong.
I'm not wrong about anything. Free software and copyrights are morally wrong and a fucking cancer.
>If you want a permissive license choose BSD/MIT.
i don't care about licenses. They're directly spawned from the copyright laws, which should be abolished.
I'm also not only talking about software here. Any information (books, videos, music, movies, pictures,...) and physical property (from CPUs and phones to chairs) should not be controlled by retarded totalitarian laws unless they can be used to cause harm (weapon/gun and drug regulations allowing only sane and non-criminal people to buy and sell them are fine). Any law that goes against human rights is wrong.
▶ No.1045938>>1045955
>>1045936
>If the law is forcing people to do something then it applies to people.
<I have no clue what Free Software is/means but I'll post about anyways
>I'm not wrong about anything.
Let me quote you:
>Without copyright everything would be copyleft by default.
Stupid nigger.
▶ No.1045943
>>1045753
Shut the fuck up MPAA shill
▶ No.1045944>>1045945
>>1045777
>Free Software can only exist if you can enforce the freedoms. Without copyright you can't prevent niggers from taking your shit and shitting all over it.
Then make proprietary software illegal dumbass. You don't need copyright for a blanket ban on things that threaten your freedom.
▶ No.1045945>>1045947 >>1045955
>>1045944
>Then make proprietary software illegal dumbass.
Please tell me how.
▶ No.1045947>>1045950
>>1045945
The same way we get rid of copyright.
▶ No.1045953>>1045954
>>1045950
That really depends how far they're willing to push things.
▶ No.1045954
▶ No.1045955>>1045959
>>1045938
>have no clue what Free Software is
I know what it is, idiot. I'm saying laws shouldn't enforce it or copyright of any kind. "Free software" is just the other side of the copyright coin. Both are equally shit.
>Without copyright everything would be copyleft by default.
I worded it bad and I was thinking of public domain and MIT because I'm not a "free"tard and don't care about GNU and their philosophy. You're clinging to one poorly worded sentence and attacking it as an argument because you know you're wrong in everything else.
Without copyright EVERYONE by default has the right to copy, distribute and edit software as well as sell the service of providing this software, without the original owners intervention. So basically, public domain. Nothing other than public domain should exist.
>>1045945
"Proprietary software is bad because people don't know what they consume, just like proprietary food is bad because people aren't allowed to check their food for poison/drugs/unwanted substances. Therefore source code MUST be released to the public at any time otherwise your software will be considered illegal and you'll be penalized."
You can say something like that.
>>1045950
Abolish copyright as a right and redefine intellectual property as information which you haven't disclosed. You're literally asking how to change laws. Get enough people and influential people to vote against this. (You) can't do anything yourself.
▶ No.1045959>>1045963
>>1045955
>I know what it is, idiot.
You have shown multiple times that you don't know what it is.
>I worded it bad
>I'm not a freetard
You're something even worse: an actual retard.
>Nothing other than public domain should exist.
The public domain doesn't respect my freedoms, though.
▶ No.1045963>>1045965
>>1045959
>public domain doesn't respect my freedoms, though.
It does by not forcing anyone to do anything. You just want to remove other people's freedom. You GNUtards are all insane.
▶ No.1045965
>>1045963
>It does
You were claiming that you understand Free Software. You don't.
>You just want to remove other people's freedom.
Yes. I want to remove other people's freedom to remove other people's freedom.
▶ No.1045977>>1045982 >>1045991
What if we build an EMP Bomb for Brussel and let them feel how we feel.
We stop them from working, as a Part of punishment to show them what Censorship is to us.
A little abstract idea. But it would function.
▶ No.1045982>>1045985
>>1045977
>EMP
How about an actual bomb instead of a meme bomb?
I'm of course just joking, GSG 9. I'm not actually considering to bomb politicians.
▶ No.1045985
>>1045982
It's too late for you
▶ No.1045986
>>1045780
>GNUnet is a convoluted mess.
I would agree with you 5 years ago, it was a complete clusterfuck, but nowadays it's not.
▶ No.1045991
>>1045977
hypothetically and more realistically one would probably be more likely to get results from writing a virus that would target eu infrastructure
▶ No.1046034
>>1045911
Advice on good client?
▶ No.1046058
>>1045751 (OP)
Be careful OP. Many lleftypol shills lurk in here and make sure not to trigger them.
▶ No.1046063
▶ No.1046066
>>1045950
An actual answer: Hail Hydra
Cut off one head and five take its place.
Tell me how difficult it is to pirate Zootopia in 1080p.
▶ No.1046873>>1046876 >>1046911
>>1045780
Got any suggestions better than Tor, or just as good? Because we could use some input, time is running out to save the free Internet and if we are all too stubborn then we get no where. So do you know of any better alternatives? If so nows the time to speak up.
▶ No.1046875
>>1045753
Well then call it fascism, the threats are really the same. Doesn't matter what despotic label you slap on it.
PS: both communism and fascism suck ass and its the governments/bureaucrats who are the ones who always RUIN capitalism for consumers!
▶ No.1046876>>1046880
>>1046873
YES! ME!
DO NOT TRUST TOR IT IS VERY VULNERABLE! ALWAYS USE A VPN AND WINDOWS BECAUSE LINUX IS FULL OF BACKDORS 2
▶ No.1046880
>>1046876
I use a private VPN and linux OS (an older linux OS)... and the only Windows computer I have has Windows XP installed but its offline (I only use it for ripping DVDs/CDs and converting media formats).
▶ No.1046911
>>1046873
Nothing is just as good because among all those Tor is the best documented and the only finished protocol.
▶ No.1046921
>>1045936
>should not be controlled by retarded totalitarian laws unless they can be used to cause harm (weapon/gun and drug regulations allowing only sane and non-criminal people to buy and sell them are fine).
Nigger, changing the definitions of "sane" and "non-criminal" is trivial for the governments. Take Britain as an example, where calling someone mean things will label you a criminal.
▶ No.1046922>>1047001
>>1045753
>big corporations owning the Internet != communism
You mean the government?
>copyright != communism
You mean state monopoly isn't communism?
▶ No.1047001>>1047007 >>1047008 >>1047027 >>1047103
>>1046922
>You mean the government?
It doesn't matter who is taking away your freedom, a bourgeois is still a bourgeois. Also implying that big corporations aren't the government.
>You mean state monopoly isn't communism?
No it isn't. Communism is about decentralising the means of production, whereas monopoly is giving the power to a few people - polarization of the society.
Right-wing propaganda works huh? It is easy to call everything you disagree with a communism. It's like I would call mosquitoes proprietary, because I don't like proprietary software.
▶ No.1047007>>1047017
>>1047001
you have never lived in a communist or even socialist country.
▶ No.1047008>>1047010 >>1047017 >>1047059
>>1047001
>communism
>decentralizing
Holy shit are you stupid...
Communism is about seizing the means of productions.
That means the government (after a communist revolution) takes control of them.
That is called centralization! However in this case it never works out because the means of productions tend to be specialized so they are too complex to be to be run by one fucking ministry.
Furthermore it never takes into account that an economy should adjust to production and demand.
>Real communism hasn't been tried before!
No it has and failed.
Just so you know. I'm not a capitalist.
>It's like I would call mosquitoes proprietary
They are. Nature never gave you source code. Just compiled binaries called DNA. However it is not illegal to reverse engineer them.
▶ No.1047009
What's true for mosquitoes is also true for you. I hope you kill yourself now out of self-hate.
▶ No.1047010>>1047012
>>1047008
>Communism is about seizing the means of productions.
exactly this!
▶ No.1047012>>1047013
>>1047010
What kind of god damn retard are you?
If they all go from multiple powers to the hands of one power, it centralization. Are you brain dead or something?
▶ No.1047013>>1047014
>>1047012
cant you see im agreeing with you? im not the anon arguing with you.
▶ No.1047014
>>1047013
Ups. It's because you made a blank line. My brain automatically groups blank line people together at this point.
▶ No.1047016
▶ No.1047017>>1047024 >>1047030 >>1047061 >>1047062 >>1047103
>>1047008
>Communism is about seizing the means of productions.
From Manifesto of the Communist Party
>The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff.
That's basically the opposite.
>They are. Nature never gave you source code. Just compiled binaries called DNA. However it is not illegal to reverse engineer them.
Ok, that was a bad example.
>Just so you know. I'm not a capitalist.
A better example - I could call you a capitalist, just because I disagree with you. :)
>No it has and failed.
If what they did, was centralisation, that wasn't communism, but just wearing red costumes.
>>1047007
>you have never lived in a communist or even socialist country.
No I didn't, but I would like to, if it was done properly.
▶ No.1047024>>1047146
>>1047017
>If what they did, was centralisation, that wasn't communism, but just wearing red costumes.
>100%: It wasn't real socialism xD
TOPKEK
>No I didn't, but I would like to, if it was done properly.
You'd regret it. If you look at all societies that existed so far, communism, free marked capitalism, limited capitalism, national socialism, primitive tribes (no-government) ...
I'd rather live in any other society that existed rather than in a communist society that existed.
>centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands
That is untrue. While they are indeed more centralized under giant corps like Coca Cola, they are still independent.
Let's look at it: Coca Cola, McDonalds, Apple (don't worry I hate all of them, it's an example) are all independent of each other, trying to maximize their profit.
Now if communism comes along all those get seized and placed in whose hands? The governments.
You may say: The people are many!!!11 However the government consists of only a few and represents ONE force.
And those few are then driven by what's minimally expected of them. They don't get fired or bonuses for good work. Non of the means of production would work like they used too. They might not even meet the demand and the Coca Cola section in supermarkets would be empty.
If your idea of communism doesn't centralize it's not communism at all. If they aren't centralized no one can enforce equal outcome, so it won't be communist. Capitalism only privatizes.
Limited capitalism keeps state required facilities state-run. National socialism privatizes and and nationalizes as the government deems reasonable.
Do you believe in equal outcome? If not, you may have to look for a new worldview.
▶ No.1047025
I also want to note that Pepsi Cola still exists. Not that I'd recommend that either.
▶ No.1047026>>1047028
>>1045751 (OP)
The EU is actually the remnants of the EEC, which is the remnants of Nazi Germany's economic system imposed on WW2 Europe.
▶ No.1047027
>>1047001
>It doesn't matter who is taking away your freedom, a bourgeois is still a bourgeois. Also implying that big corporations aren't the government.
The government, as in Communism.
>No it isn't. Communism is about decentralising the means of production, whereas monopoly is giving the power to a few people - polarization of the society.
The government is the enforcer of copyright because it gets to decide it. Private entities wouldn't have any power over copyrights if governments didn't enact laws.
>Muh the government is controlled by private bourgeoisie
As if Communism wasn't just that.
And no, sorry to say that to you, but utopian postulates that this wouldn't happen doesn't prove themselves true, but are just diversions that are confined to the world of fiction.
Commie propaganda really works, eh?
▶ No.1047028>>1047031 >>1047039
>>1047026
>Inception 1 January 1958
>WWII
>End time 2 September 1945
There is still no peace treaty between the USA and Germany and Germany is still officially occupied. They just neither like saying or hearing that.
Can you just accept that you are retarded and shouldn't post here?
▶ No.1047030
>>1047017
>No I didn't, but I would like to, if it was done properly.
i can tell you are young.
▶ No.1047031
>>1047028
As soon as you tell me where to get that time machine.
▶ No.1047038
>>1045751 (OP)
At least Stalin was honest,in a way.
▶ No.1047039>>1047146
>>1047028
>There is still no peace treaty between the USA and Germany and Germany is still officially occupied.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_with_Respect_to_Germany
▶ No.1047059>>1047089 >>1047146
>>1047008
>That means the government (after a communist revolution) takes control of them.
No, the proletariat takes control of them. It just makes sense to organize, especially against the inevitable counterrevolution (like the bay of pigs invasion). But even if we just talked about nationalization (e.g. telcom) in some bourgeois democracy like the UK, I would prefer the democratic government owning the economy over some unelected, unaccountable plutocrats.
>That is called centralization! However in this case it never works out because the means of productions tend to be specialized so they are too complex to be to be run by one fucking ministry.
Gosplan did better than the anarchic free market and "herd intelligence" of capitalists, pic related.
▶ No.1047061>>1047064
>>1047017
>If what they did, was centralisation, that wasn't communism, but just wearing red costumes.
Stop repeating cold-war anticommunist propaganda. Taking the economy out of private hands is necessary to achieve communism, even if it at first is "just" through a socialist government. Of course further democratization and control by workers are desirable, but even that first step on the road to FULL communism was a great victory for the bottom 90% of society, and the restoration of capitalism made their lives a lot worse again.
▶ No.1047062
>>1047017
>No I didn't, but I would like to, if it was done properly.
Don't let your dreams be dreams.
▶ No.1047064>>1047067
>>1047061
After you stop repeating Cold War communist propaganda.
▶ No.1047067
>>1047064
how about some end of history propaganda from the notoriously communist outlet free radio europe:
>In a survey whose results were published on December 19, two-thirds -- or 66 percent -- of respondents answered "yes" when asked whether they regret the 1991 Soviet collapse.
>Worries about their current economic situation and prospects were a major factor for many of those respondents, Levada said.
https://www.rferl.org/a/russian-regret-at-soviet-collapse-stands-at-14-year-high-poll-shows/29664759.html
▶ No.1047083>>1047086 >>1047117
>>1045753
Stop quoting this faggot. He was trying to sabotage the thread for his autistic niche leftist militancy.
It's obvious to anyone the comparison with USSR was spot on: a centralized totalitarian expansive power, a political entity (a chaste of politicians, bureaucrats, with even military and police enforcement) that tries to rob liberty from its citizens for its own interests. It's also explicit to any retard that big corporations lobby with politicians, specially for this copyright issue - and such lobbies were also common in USSR with their corruption and oligarchies. That faggot knows this and he's not a simple retard, but a militant retard.
>complains about derailment
>quotes the faggot and keeps derailing
▶ No.1047086
>>1047083
>It's obvious to anyone the comparison with USSR was spot on: a centralized totalitarian expansive power
This is exactly it. The people that were responsible for the red revolution were funded by Wall St. You don't need to control the gov't when you control the vector of communication.
▶ No.1047088
>>1045751 (OP)
I'm completely disgusted by what the Pirate Party's became. Instead of fighting for Internet freedom and basic rights inside each country, the faggots have strayed to faggotery and pro-degeneracy militancy. They lost all the focus in actual /tech/ questions. Same goes to universities. Ten years ago we were worried about real problems, now the environment is ruined by feminism and AIDS.
The closer I have now to defend the Internet in my country are groups that mix libertarianism with americanism (with their Bill of Rights admiration), but they are easily corrupted by neocons and "market liberals" that will focus in defending the "Market", ignoring individual and decentralized sovereignty.
Still so, I hope and always try to convince my people copyright laws should serve a purpose: a lobby advantageous to my nation, to my people, and other groups shouldn't be considered on it. And it should be the most pragmatic and least totalitarian as possible. For long lasting copyrights are as useful as burning libraries and imprisoning people who try to save and copy the books so they are not burned. The amount of freedom it steals us should be minimal and it shouldn't stop progress. And, if a fair copyright law is near impossible to be implemented, these laws should be completely abolished.
The good thing for me is my countrymen, even being outside the EU, are more worried about EU's totalitarian polices than these Europeans themselves. EU's becoming more and more a strawman to be used against totalitarian polices. So if there's renovation in politics, we are more likely to do the exact contrary to all the disgusting shit being made in EU.
▶ No.1047089>>1047101 >>1047123
>>1047059
That image you got there does not demonstrate the wonders of communism, it demonstrates the wonders of industrialization. "Say what you want about Stalin, but before him Russia had the plow, after him the factory" -rough quote from some anonymous Stalin apologist.
▶ No.1047095
>>1045751 (OP)
maybe you shouldn't have sold all your OC out to a for-profit site run by a pig farmer in the first place, retard
▶ No.1047101>>1047128
>>1047089
The only reason communism got a foothold in the first place was because Russia was having trouble changing from an agrarian society to an industrial one. It's similar to how the US is being upset by the potential of automation, and many fools are falling for socialism again.
▶ No.1047103>>1047132
>>1047001
>Communism is about decentralising the means of production
>whereas monopoly is giving the power to a few peope
Holy fucking shit, you're retarded. The whole point of communism is to centralize everything so that 1 party (the government) is 100% in charge of everything. And also to give the main dictator and his officers full control over the government.
Communism == totalitarianism == monopolistic and centralized by design. You cannot have communism without totalitarianism, people just aren't communistic by nature and the "everyone is equal" is a completely backwards and illogical/unnatural way of thinking which would disappear if you don't have a strong government. If what you want is a weak government then you're thinking of leftist anarchism, which is even less sustainable.
>>1047017
>I would like to, if it was done properly.
No, you wouldn't. Communism doesn't work. The ONLY way for communism to work is to have infinite resources or if the whole planet become a single country AND if the leaders aren't greedy and incompetent. In communism you're trading people's human rights for a hope that everything will work out fine and that your dictator is a saint.
▶ No.1047117>>1047122 >>1063099
>>1047083
Oligarchs did not exist before the market liberalization reforms, they are a capitalist creation. And look at your great western liberal democracies: They gave rise to hitler, a fascist, genocidal dictatorship and today they are again expanding the police state with the military, surveillance, cops with tanks etc.
It's under capitalism where you are robbed off just by fulfilling basic needs like housing which has skyrocketed in cost thanks to so much capital being in the hands of the rich that they do not know what to do with.
▶ No.1047120
>Wall St
t. Goebbels. This is what Nazi Germany did in reality. All the capitalist governments wanted to get rid of the bolsheviks
▶ No.1047122>>1047124
>>1047117
That's absolute asspulled bullshit. Oligarchy is the default governing scheme, and the most famous ones are ancient. All government's devolve into oligarchy eventually, even monarchies. In fact, most monarchies are oligarchies in disguise. The republic is the most resilient, but so far not even republics have avoided devolving into oligarchy eventually.
▶ No.1047123
>>1047089
>something good happens
<ackshually, it was X
>something bad happens
<COMMUNISM DOESNT WORK!!!
Industrialization also happened in England and it was far slower and did NOT come with things like higher wages, better education and working conditions for workers in England. They had child labour.
▶ No.1047124>>1047162
>>1047122
There was no private property before perestroika, how could a wealthy few control the country if they didn't exist? I agree though that it ended up being transformed into one. And how are monarchies not explicit oligarchies, they are made up of aristocrats that are essentially the country's landlords.
▶ No.1047128>>1047150 >>1047162
>>1047101
Maybe i was because russians were sick of being treated like shit by their upper class and sent to die in pointless imperialist wars. As the american elite continues to rob the lower classes, so will their discontent grow
▶ No.1047132>>1047136 >>1047146 >>1047150
>>1047103
>No, you wouldn't. Communism doesn't work. The ONLY way for communism to work is to have infinite resources
Capitalism is based on exponential growth, which clearly will fail sooner rather than later, as the earth is finite.
>or if the whole planet become a single country AND if the leaders aren't greedy and incompetent.
Or you know, you implement actual, direct democracy instead of this representative scam and hold them actually accountable so the opportunists can be punished.
>In communism you're trading people's human rights for a hope that everything will work out
>human rights
>private property rights
Pick 1. You can't have both. The interest of the capitalist to amass maximum profit directly oposes the interest of the common man to live an adequate life without being exploited. There is no hope here, it WILL get worse and worse.
▶ No.1047136>>1047146
>>1047132
Direct democracy isn't communism. It's libertarianism. Democracy and freedom of choice and changing laws cannot coexist with a totalitarian regime.
>The interest of the capitalist to amass maximum profit directly oposes the interest of the common man to live an adequate life without being exploited
The problem is when a country starts treating companies differently from individuals, which shouldn't happen. This problem can obviously be fixed without communism. I could just as well day "the interest of communism is to amass maximum control over people which directly oposes the interest of the common man to live an adequate life without being exploited." Read 1984. That's what every communist leader wants.
And fuck off with your communism shilling. The point of a government is not to make a billion laws and control the people. The point of a government should be to protect human rights and nothing else. The government shouldn't get involved with the distribution of economy and labour, or what people do/communicate/own/sell. I'm all for direct democracy and removal of the politicians because they're nothing but a corrupted abstraction of people's votes, but to suggest that communism is a good thing is retarded. Communism isn't what you were brainwashed to believe it is. Communism is a dictatorship where people are nothing but featureless sheep.
▶ No.1047146
>>1047039
That's bullshit and well known to be bullshit.
It only lifts certain explicit things.
Trump saying they still haven't done it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yye0_Y1cgWs&feature=youtu.be&t=966
Obama and all those niggers before him said it too on some occasions.
>>1047059
>No, the proletariat takes control of them.
Who is the proletariat? It's the new government. A mob can't rule because even if you build a house big enough for all of them to fit in they wouldn't be able to come to any conclusions about anything.
>against the inevitable counterrevolution
The theory of a counterrevolution was just an excuse for the communist government being shit.
Everyone the state didn't like (innocent people that said anything that didn't match up with communist propaganda) was framed as counterrevolutionary.
>>1047132
>Capitalism is based on exponential growth
It's not. The stock market is.
>representative scam
The big issue is that it's just as easy to scam you with that because you wouldn't be able to verify the results. That's already an issue with elections but less since they don't happen daily, so there's more time available for verification.
However that actually hasn't been tried before because of the missing developments in electronics and the aforementioned risk of manipulation.
>You can't have both.
The past has shown that you can.The phenomenon is called competition and is only possible in a state without communism.
Did you even read >>1047024 ?
>>1047136
>Direct democracy isn't communism.
This.
>because they're nothing but a corrupted abstraction of people's votes
I'd go a bit further and say that they aren't just abstractions but also distortions because some don't know what they're voting for and parties like to promise a certain thing before elections to do the exact opposite afterwards.
▶ No.1047150
>>1047128
>>1047132
The majority lower class will never vote for left anymore after you went full on anti-white, now the only thing you can do is double down on it and hope to buy minority votes with pandering, not a good hill for the left to die on. You would have though that when the millionaires from hollywood and and billion dollar media corporations were promoting anti-white ideas to the left someone would have gone "huh, the bourgeois millionaire scum are on our side now? that's odd." but no, you morons went all in. They really did a number on you.
Now go back to your containment >>>/leftypol/
▶ No.1047157
>>1045752
Could have been a good thread, but OP just had to inject their /pol/ lunacy in the OP.
▶ No.1047160
You can also add to the list 2 software for filesharing, chat, forums all p2p decentralized wich support vpn+tor+i2p:
https://www.tixati.com
https://www.fopnu.com
And this software my friends are to build your own website in 2 minutes very easy decentralized and safe, it support clearnet and .onion or tor, i mean you can build on clearnet and still your ip will be safe or you can create a .onion decentralized website.
https://www.supersimpleserver.com
It has also chat rooms and forums, drag and drop videos, you can make it look like youtube or how you want, very easy and all are decentralized and p2p.
▶ No.1047162
>post is made criticizing the eu for its shitty copyright law boundto destroy the internet as we know it at least for the majority of europoors
>/leftypol/ comes out of the woodwork to run interference for eu imperialists
Like clockwork.
>>1047124
>There was no private property before perestroika, how could a wealthy few control the country if they didn't exist?
Those wealthy few didn't suddenly stop existing as soon as Russia went commie- in fact, they actually ended up running the country.
>>1047128
I guess imperialist wars are suddenly okay when they're dressed up in the guise of spreading the revolution in what was an endless series of cold war proxy wars though.
▶ No.1047163>>1047173
Your ignorance is showing, /pol/tard.
This isn't a "le left censuring muh pepes reeeee-" it was a vote about strenghtening copyright protections and giving corporations more power over both the internet and what people can do with their IPs. Which is why all right-leaning political parties voted in favor and all far-left political parties voted against it.
Fuck communists, socialists and all that trash; but you should blame the right people.
▶ No.1047172
What about cjdns and mesh networks
▶ No.1047173>>1047177 >>1047197
>>1047163
Most of le media and businesses are left leaning
▶ No.1047177>>1047190
>>1047173
No they aren't. They benefit from right-wing policies like tax cuts, deregulation, privatization and social security cuts (to pressure wages down), and they act in their material interest, unlike /pol/yps who act against theirs to trigger the SJWs.
▶ No.1047178>>1047190 >>1047226
The American corporate media that relentless shits on Trump still prefers him over a social democrat like Bernie.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=tpI0ThZiFh0&t=8m42s
▶ No.1047190
>>1047177
No, they benefit from regulatory capture of "reasonable restrictions" that they lobbied for in the first place under the guise of ending monopolies and making "the rich pay their share"- when in fact they've been using those very same laws from the very beginning to stifle competition and seize control of all institutions in society. Most leftists are so far up the asses of their corporate masters that they're incapable of realizing it.
Now stop running interference for left wing and corporate interests you porky motherfucker.
>>1047178
They're malicious retards, but they know exactly what they're doing.
▶ No.1047197>>1047210 >>1047262 >>1047285
>>1047173
A corporation cannot be "leftist" by definition. Just because they're not parroting /pol/tard bullshit all day doesn't mean they're leftist, nor does it change the fact that that most of the political parties that voted in favor of Article 13 were right-leaning.
▶ No.1047210
>>1047197
>A corporation cannot be "leftist" by definition.
Patently false.
Corporations are just as prone as ideological infiltration and subversion as any other organization- perhaps doubly so. And nothing prevents leftists from doing said infiltration or using corporate power for accelerationist tactics.
▶ No.1047226
>>1047178
You don't need to link to a kike.
Yes even a kike can point out the obvious.
Sanders is a kike too just so you know.
Trumps wife is a kike, so his children are kikes too according to kike rules even if he himself isn't which I however doubt.
And think about how great more money for the Clintons would have been.
Your government so fucked, only complete eradication of it will ever set you amerimutts free.
▶ No.1047262>>1047286
>>1047197
Corporations, not unlike governments, are, in the end, just a group of people. They can be leftists just like anyone else. Also most tech corps are on the left, they don't agree with having their assets stolen and given to lazy niggers but they still spend several millions pushing anti-White propaganda.
▶ No.1047285
>>1047197
>A corporation cannot be "leftist" by definition.
What about Mondragon Corporation?
▶ No.1047286>>1047290
>>1047262
Leftism =/= idpol
▶ No.1047290
>>1047286
Of course, if you go back to the origins leftism was just those against the king. But you know very well I mean leftism today and not in Louis XVI's time. And that means idpol as you very well know.
▶ No.1050280
8chan is hosted in the USA
▶ No.1050300
Finally some proper oppression. Probably not however, a man can dream of more split times.
▶ No.1050467
>>1045780
what if u route ipfs web traffic through TOR? besides being somewhat slow, it should work, right?
▶ No.1063098
>>1045763
>Without copyright Free Software couldn't exist.
Dumbass
▶ No.1063099
>>1047117
an anarchocapitalist cant send you to gulag for refusing to work his land and for trying to leave his property
▶ No.1063101
>>1045753
Copyright isn't communism, it's worse
▶ No.1065104
>>1045831
This is an american-free discussion. Please leave.
▶ No.1065132>>1065139
>>1045751 (OP)
i hope the EU becomes much worse so the idiots have no choice but to hate the EU
▶ No.1065139>>1065208
>>1065132
I don't know how much worse it can become without actually killing innocent citizens in plain sight. The EU as a governing body is acting one step below the Soviet Union who was worse because of their policy of genocide of the opponents and dissidents of communism.
▶ No.1065208>>1065237
>>1065139
Well they're already genociding us with niggers and opponents and dissidents of communism the EU just get hit a hit to the head by antifa.
They're just claiming it isn't happening.
>plain sight
Wanna bet this is the next step?
▶ No.1065231>>1065234
>>1045763
Without copyright, all software would be free software.
▶ No.1065234
>>1065231
Not quite. We require access to source code in order to have freedom. Without copyright, we would have the right to freedoms 0,2,3. Freedom 1 would be restricted by virtue of not being available to any user.
▶ No.1065236
>>1045751 (OP)
These moves are all very obvious once everyone accepts that we are in the state of war. The entire western civilization is under siege and marked for destruction by a group that doesn't even have the honor to declare war out in the open. Instead they oppress the victim into silent acceptance of their own destruction.
▶ No.1065237
>>1065208
I don't think you know what you're saying. The countries being flooded by Africans are the countries who support the will of the EU. The countries who have secured their borders also oppose the EU's migration policy and are not being flooded.
▶ No.1065258>>1065259
>>1045751 (OP)
Copyrights are about controlling the dissemination of intellectual culture. If the first person to create a biface kept that from the rest of tribe we would be extinct. If the first person to control fire never shared what he had learned, we'd probably be extinct. If you limit the dissemination of technology you create further inequality in cognitive culture which leads to small groups of people having a hand up on larger groups of people. If every technological advance just leads to a small group having greater control over an even larger group where is this going to put us? It puts us in a technological dark age like in Medieval times when people only weathly and powerful people could read and write.
Information wants to be free. Liars and people who withhold information to control the masses are not working in anyone's best interest. These copyright laws are aimed at memes. He who controls the memes controls the world.
Here's what each of us should do.
Every time a company jumps on board with cenorship of any kind encourage people to boycott them.
Facebook politically censors everything. Print flyers about Minds and Gab. Physically walk around and hand them to people. Explain why Gab and Minds are better. Same with twitter.
Google. Start encouraging people to use DuckDuckGo. Personally use DuckDuckGo for a large percentage of your search queries.
Amazon: There are numerous ecommerce platforms where you can buy and sell. Stop using Amazon. If you are a big amazon seller start gradually moving your products to other platforms so you are not dependent on Amazon
Microsoft. Buy a 50 pack of DVDs and burn 50 Linux disks. Hand them out to people. Do it regularly. Start a Linux user group in your community. It will take work. Stop complaining and just do it.
YouTube Start mirror YouTube content that you like on other sites. Contact YouTubers you like and encourage them to mirror their content on other sites. Eventually content will lure users away from YouTube.
Start posting Links to this board. I noticed one of my /tech/ posts was #1 on DuckDuckGo within 24 hours being posted. People use 8chan. It's ranked around 1600 on Alexa. Blogroll 8chan. Submit 8chan to web directories and post 8chan threads on social media.8ch.net is PageRank 6/10. Let's get it to 7/10 within the next couple of updates.
▶ No.1065259
>>1065258
>that whole post
big OOOF