/tech/ - Technology★

https://scihub22266oqcxt.onion.link/

Should have put it on IPFS :^)

Did something happen that I missed?

>>834736

>>834744

Court rule froze their dominions.

Sci-hub is used to open scientific papers in online journals who are behind a paywall.

People working in STEM fields got hit greatly by that court rule, as you need to access the "aristocrats" to cite them in your papers or you have no voice.

Don't they just rotate domains sort of like what the piratebay does

https://sci-hub.tw/

There is also http://libgen.io/

which is a pretty awesome resource for actual ebooks and the occasional scientific article.

Psssst... kid....

https://sci.libgen.pw/

>But seriously, is Sci-hub really dead?

Is this your first day on the Internet? Pirate domains get shut down all the time. The only reason it was fucked up that The Daily Stormer got theirs revoked is that they did nothing illegal.

https://www.opennic.org/

>>834736

Good goy. Don't enquire about Library Genesis either.

I could never figure out how to use the damn site anyway. Every time I tried to search for something in biology by author or title it came up with nothing.

>>834820

Because it's not a search engine.

>>834820

You input the ISSN, DOI or whatever code associated to an specific paywall article and hope it's available.

>>834693 (OP)

>Giving ICANN to the UN

You can thank Niggerbama while the techleft faggot noobs whine about muh net neutrality. Those fucking niggerfaggots were the first in tech to support censorship. Apple, Shitter, Nosebook, all of them need to burn alive for their sins against the internet.

This has absolutely nothing to do with ICANN and the UN

This was done by Verisign in response to a Virginia court order.

ICANN is not involved. The UN is not involved. ICANN belonging to the UN does not matter for this.

>>837396

>>837393

Sci-hub's dominions are being frozen by their Registrar, something that wasn't possible if ICANN was still held by the First Amendment, as the decision goes downstream.

>>837400

That is a lie. This has happened since time immemorial, else clearnet CP sites would never lose their domains.

>>837400

It was possible before. It happened to 8chan before ICANN changed ownership.

Domain registrars, hosting providers, etcetera are not bound by the first amendment.

>>837402

>else clearnet CP sites would never lose their domains

Perhaps in a perfect world. But this is a sinful world undeserving of such pure and beautiful things. ;_;

>>834693 (OP)

>Giving ICANN to the UN

ICANN was not given to the UN.

ICANN never held any authority over what registrars did. You guys still don't know what ICANN does, do you?

https://ballotpedia.org/John_F._Anderson

appointed by Bush , put out the Warrant for Snowden

And now shutting down SciHub

>>837390

Put up or shut up

You're as much to blame for their sins because of your inactivity

>>837577

>expecting /pol/tards to know anything

All they're good for is repeating bullshit.

>>837755

this, first it was "ICANN TO THE UN ALL IS LOST" now its "NET NEUTRALITY IS GOVERNMENT CONTROL, THE KIKES WANT AN OPEN INTERNET WE GOTTA SHUT IT DOWN"

/pol/ 180's and bends over for trumps corporate shills per usual.

>>837760

So you're saying that a corporation's interest can never align with those of the consumer? That's awfully communist of you to say.

>>837776

>Consumer

You're not paying, you're the Product for the companies who pay for Ads.

>Never align

It's a matter of profit. Both /pol/ and /leftypol/ agree on that.

The Food industry is the most blatant example of that, the Pharmaceutical one is extremely obvious too.

The difference is that /leftypol/ thinks this is universal and permanent, specially because they are Materialists just like Capitalists, and that /pol/ thinks this is only Capitalist-dependent, Kike-drove and fixable.

The pre-Capitalist Guild system confirms /pol/ vision, and so the Middle Ages' economic system and the American System of Economics (when it concerns the mechanisms of money creation).

A "Boss" will always exist because hierarchy is absolute among humans, but a "Boss" (how it behaves, ita goals, missions, visions, consequences of its acts, causes of his drive, etc) in Capitalism is completely different than a "Boss" in Communism and a "Boss" in Cameralism, and in Democracy, and in Monarchy, etc

The concepts aren't the same, expect for its leadership.

>>837785

Things that benefit Google don't automatically harm you. It's completely possible for Google to want net neutrality for selfish reasons even though net neutrality is good.

>>837789

Yes, nothing is absolute, AV1 is also a good example of aligned interests of everyone. But you see, the keyword is aligned, Google will only do such "good deeds" by coincidence, as You are secondary.

>>837803

Sure, but by the same logic, Google will only do "bad deeds" by coincidence, especially if there's no direct exchange of value between you and them.

"Google likes it" is not an argument for something being bad. It tells you approximately nothing about whether net neutrality is bad or good. It's not worth mentioning.

>>837804

Not at all, you're applying an universalistic approach to Google's actions, as if it didn't have goals or ideologies.

>>837809

Google's goals as they relate to this issue are orthogonal to mine. If it fullfills Google's goals that doesn't make it any more or less likely to fullfill mine.

>>837785

>You're not paying, you're the Product for the companies who pay for Ads

So you're saying companies hold power and basically dominate consumers? That's the very core of Marxist theory!

>It's a matter of profit

Exactly. They will do what is profitable disregarding what's better for consumers. Which means they will do good stuff such as offering great free* services, but they will also do bad stuff such as disrespecting their user's freedoms and datamining them beyond what's morally reasonable.

I repeat, they do this because it's profitable, not because they're inherently evil. Stallman gas repeated this over and over again in his speeches.

Your line of reasoning, however, is that corporations do all that shit because they're being intentionally malicious and want to harm consumers in some way. That's the Marxist way to see the relationship between companies and consumers.

And this is why I hate /pol/tards. You guys just repeat whatever bullshit you read on the board without a second thought.

This makes sense because /pol/ stands for "politically incorrect", which means their entire platform is to piss off others and be as contrarian as possible. The problem are the retards that base their ideology and identity on it.

>>837853

>So you're saying companies hold power and basically dominate consumers? That's the very core of Marxist theory!

Firstly, Marx wasn't the one who came up with any of that, these ideas were already present and he just took it for him. Nothing wrong with that.

Secondly, there are different cases everywhere and the core issue of companies is not the one you said, but only of some companies and in a Capitalist context. And no, life isn't a Capitalist vs Communist dichotomy (both are extremely similar, in fact) and there are and were other alternatives to both.

>Your line of reasoning, however, is that corporations do all that shit because they're being intentionally malicious and want to harm consumers in some way. That's the Marxist way to see the relationship between companies and consumers.

Take off your ideological googles and atop putting words on my mouth by interpreting what I said wrongly. It's not every company, not in every context.

We're talking about Google solely here while only hinting at others. Again, within context, no universalistic bullshit, historically wrong, materialism.

>And this is why I hate /pol/tards. You guys just repeat whatever bullshit you read on the board without a second thought.

And this is why you is just acephalous, thinking a board is a person, misinterpreting everything with a gigantic lack of historical and economical perspectives.

>This makes sense because /pol/ stands for "politically incorrect", which means their entire platform is to piss off others and be as contrarian as possible. The problem are the retards that base their ideology and identity on it.

Holy cow, you're triggered and projecting your rape fantasies now.

>>837862

>Firstly, Marx wasn't the one who came up with any of that, these ideas were already present and he just took it for him. Nothing wrong with that.

Irrelevant.

>Secondly, there are different cases everywhere and the core issue of companies is not the one you said, but only of some companies and in a Capitalist context.

Ah, so some companies are evil and some others are driven by profits? Prove that.

>And no, life isn't a Capitalist vs Communist dichotomy

No, it's not. This issue is. Your reasoning resonates with Marxist theory.

>(both are extremely similar, in fact)

You don't know what you're talking about.

>and there are and were other alternatives to both.

Such as?

>Take off your ideological googles and atop putting words on my mouth by interpreting what I said wrongly. It's not every company, not in every context.

I stand corrected.

Just replace "companies" by "Google" and my point still stands.

>We're talking about Google solely here while only hinting at others. Again, within context, no universalistic bullshit, historically wrong, materialism.

Again, how is Google inherently evil?

>And this is why you is just acephalous, thinking a board is a person, misinterpreting everything with a gigantic lack of historical and economical perspectives.

>Holy cow, you're triggered and projecting your rape fantasies now.

Nice ad-hominem.

>>838102

Incredible, you made no arguments.

I'm not going to answer you because debating crap will only sully me.

In fact, I already said some of the things you asked now.

No, what I'm saying doesn't come from Marxism, but actually have an older shared source.

And profit isn't even the issue here, not even a problem.

Learn first what money is.

>>838110

I'm still waiting for you to back up any of your claims. So far all you've done is imply that Google is somehow this Jewish bogeyman and that your Marxist claims aren't Marxists because... Wait, no, you haven't answered this either.

>>838149

Dealing with retards is tiring, keep waiting for me, go on.

>>838102

>This is Marxist

>That is Marxist

>You're being Marxist

I don't get it. Where's the argument here? What are you trying to say? Is Marxist a buzzword that makes you automatically win the discussion?

>>837853

What the fuck? How is only caring about profits, disregarding any other consideration, not evil? Do you really think you're making some kind of big reveal here?

>>838408

>How is only caring about profits, disregarding any other consideration, not evil?

It's a bit of a semantic difference, but I would call that amoral, not evil. I don't think there's anything wrong with them making profit in itself, it's just that a lot of ways they could make profit happen to be evil.

If they somehow didn't do anything evil in the process of making profit they wouldn't be evil, and not all of their individual actions are evil.

Now, if their goal was to torture people, that would be an evil goal. Any action that works toward accomplishing that goal would work toward accomplishing evil. But an attempt to make profit is not necessarily evil.

>>838406

Just like the epic Jew memes and the scary parentheses.

>>838408

It's amoral, not evil. Assuming companies are evil or doing evil stuff on purpose would lead to more regulations which is exactly what the /pol/tards claim to be against.

>>834693 (OP)

you realize DNS has absolutely no sway over the operation of a website, right?

>>834782

pirate websites also did nothing illegal you fucking poltard. hosting torrents is not illegal. hosting files shouldn't be illegal. nobody should have to go through stuff 10 billion dudes uploaded to their site to make sure it complies to some ephemeral law of some random country.

>>838543

you do not exist in the real world

>>838423

Hook nose seems triggered.lel