MagicShel

I don't even think Michigan voter registration asks for party affiliation. I've never been a party member and frankly I don't think anyone is a member of any party unless they are an elected official or maybe part of their campaign.

To say "I'm a Democrat" or "I'm a Republican", to me, is to say, "I believe what I'm told to believe and I vote how I'm told to vote."

That said, I can imagine it's different in places where you have to declare an affiliation in order to vote in the elections you want to vote in.

I don't tend to believe in conspiracies, but man they make it difficult by just constantly being the shadiest motherfuckers.

It's also fun in the other direction. Like Exalted has stat blocks for mortals, but the PCs are literally built to fight entities more powerful than gods.

An encounter with a mortal is always just a narration scene even if combat ensues. You can pulverize ten of these guys without breaking a sweat, but do you? What does your choice say about you?

Exalted isn't a game about fighting mortals in quantities less than an army, and there is no threat in doing so. Any tension in the scene is purely about what the characters do with essentially unlimited power. And that can be interesting and tense for some groups and in others it's a thirty second aside on the way to fight timeless terrors.

The only legal mechanism for holding power accountable is the vote. Once that's taken away, you either accept subjugation or you don't. But the latter isn't legal and that doesn't sit right with a lot of folks.

I appreciate the passion, but I was referring to due process and legal accountability. I’m struggling to see the connection between that and the point you’re trying to make here.

Fight smart? Yeah that's my goal.

Don't be afraid? I'm not for myself. A bit for my family, but resistance works best with large numbers and I can't control the fear of others. As you said, have to be smart.

Anonymity? I do my best but I'm not fool enough to think the government couldn't identify me if they cared enough to.

Then you're just going to be at the mercy of the people that do maintain these things. I realize maybe my response was taken as disagreement or argument but it really wasn't meant that way.

As a product owner I'd want a way to contact or validate a user for customer service or service management reasons. Self service password reset, etc.

But I'm interested in anonymity and if there were another good solution I'd be all ears. I'm not trying to defend email, just curious what mechanism could take its place. Some sort of cryptographic signature might work, though I would have to think carefully about no separate communication/ confirmation channel. I could see offering someone to use any identity of their choosing which would allow them as much anonymity and freedom of choice as they wanted. It's an interesting challenge.

It's all of the above at once. It's hard to think of another identifier that hits them all.

4093rnbgv3q09vn032

It's not a communication method outside of the platform it's on. It's also not platform agnostic if it's your identity on a service.

I have several email addresses that are not remotely associated with any legal identity that I could transfer to someone that took over associated projects should the need arise.

It looks like your complaint is as a user, not the service owner? I wouldn't run a project like that, but feel free to start one up. Lots of people would appreciate that, I'm sure.

How would any citizen know that they are actual law enforcement and had a legal right to do what they were doing? I'm not letting anyone take my neighbors without proof that it's being done lawfully. Why would any of us except out of fear?

• It's a communication tool
• It's a unique identity
• You can have more than one
• It's platform agnostic
• It's anonymous
• It's transferable

That's a fairly nice set of attributes.

What would you propose instead? I'm not arguing or anything just genuinely curious what it would be replaced with. Maybe some kind of cryptographic identity, I guess?

I would not switch to a chromium-based browser at all. For lots of reasons, but if I had to pick one it would be to avoid creating a dominant browser and ceding control over web standards to a single entity the way MS used IE to do what they wanted and force everyone else to comply.

Those were dark times. I was still being forced to make sites IE5 compatible in 2015 — official support ended in 2005.

Lemmy settings, not exposed through Voyager:

So then... people convicted of rape-alike in non-English speaking jurisdictions are not rapists either because "rape" isn't on their court paperwork? Or do we translate that into the local vernacular?