https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9w0HzJqf-4e6tzKEP6mG...

Why not offer the world a vote, since every American fart in the wind has the potential to impact everyone's life, economy, food supply, etc. The world is pissed, like Americans, that the USG doesn't listen and take everyone's interests into account. We've developed a bad habit as a world here, of mistrust, secrets, and information wars. I think that the world [other nations and their people] feel they should have a voice, and I agree.

Russia can't run political ads openly, obviously, but why not? If myself, Rush Limbaugh, or David Duke can buy an ad, why not? State clearly whose opinion it is, and be done with it. If Justin Beiber put out an anti-trump campaign, would everyone panic? Besides, read the reports, no harm was done or could have been done. RT was the most watched news on YouTube with over 5 billion views. A few Facebook ads or tweets made all the difference? If they were gonna change peoples' opinions, wtf was another $200k USD gonna do? Don't forget they were approached and asked to buy ads in the first place.

Perhaps their arguments bear consideration since we've spent over half a century examining each other and analyzing each other's systems for flaws and coming up with every creative way imaginable to rebut the rationale, suggest improvements to processes, and criticize legislature. Such an opinion sounds valuable as hell to me. I love when people tell me I'm ate up, please do so I know.

Is it so hard to accept that Americans might agree with non-Americans on issues? WTF is so terrifying? I went to elementary school during the Cold War in a school which was an underground bomb shelter designed with 18 ft. of reinforced concrete to withstand nuclear strikes in the area. We heard every piece of propaganda there was to hear, I met Reagan on the playground, and I'm a Veteran now myself. The brainwashing failed I guess because I still, rather more than ever, think we need to grow up and re-prioritize our efforts. Why can we not accept that we're on the same dirt ball? We're neighbors in fact, with so much in common that it's laughable.

I gave it a lot of thought, and realized there is really no way I can understand Russians. After spending over a year studying Russian language, culture, intercultural communication, and history, I realized everything I thought was wrong. We've been misled quite badly on both sides by assumptions, misgivings, preemptive fuckery, and old emotions. How many of your friends know we got Alaska from Russia, or about Valentina Tereshkova? I mean we're being guided by the provably unfounded opinions of people not qualified to even have an informed perspective on the subject, to everyone's detriment.

Invite Russia to roast us, and have a public analysis of the feedback. Let's act like we give a shit and hear them out instead of forcing these silly spy games as our only means of discourse. Look how fast people flipped out when Trump wanted to establish a line to Putin. Wtf? Because 'I'm not talking to you because you don't think just like me' always works wonderfully, no?

To go a step further we could declare amnesty for all offenses in the spirit of understanding, truly forgive each other, and invite our governments to literally come over and talk. No secrets, complete data exchange. Invite Russian agents to NORAD, sit down and do an AMA. Tour the Kremlin with US officials. We think they did this, they think we did that, maybe we did maybe they did... Labor stories.

I'd bet if we laid all the cards on the table for each other and agreed to a cooperative path forward with an exchange of intelligence, defense, science, and medical information, we would find atrocities we never imagined on both sides as well as tons of wrong assumptions. Can't we have a laugh, exchange some glares, and hug before walking out before the press to announce that the notion of destabilizing the free world is over, and the games are too? That from this moment forward, we will consider our impact on all people of all nations and abandon the fallacious thinking that either of us has the right answers all the time?

Or are we really so self-serving that we cannot bear criticism of our beliefs and methods, even when we cause harm to others. Fuck 'em then? Frustration leads to wanting to feel this way, but nobody really means it and we all pay for it when we give up.

Or maybe I'm crazy. o/ There is no Deep and Mysterious Russian Soul, and Americans are so ignorant they can't even see how ignorant they are. Accept this and be friends without completely agreeing on everything? Maybe? Sounds like just having respect for others to me, which is also having respect for yourself.

As an experiment, here is a Soviet propaganda film from 1979. Check it out, at the time it seemed extremist, insulting, a danger to the free world... But how does it look now? Did we change, or did perceptions? Does the concept, the warning about dangers of western extravagance, seem unfair or untrue to you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRSsybt9wAo&t=518s

https://open.segment.com/fellowship Because of the following filter ||segment.com^

Found in: Peter Lowe’s Ad and tracking server list

TL;DR

I see freedom and privacy as something which cannot be combined with this concept as the project currently stands, due to reasons which are not immediately apparent but which I believe have at least enough substance to raise an eyebrow and question things.

I am left with the following questions after examining SEC documents, SM accounts, financial relationships, and company activities of parties involved and technologies used:

   1) Do I want to build on a platform which can never be truly safe
      because the stakeholders have a compelling interest in undermining
      its anonymous usage? (See explanation below)
   
   2) Why do things smell fishy...

        2c) Realizing I personally equate P2P with privacy, free speech, etc.,
            I wonder, why Chrome? Then I think of all of my compatriots. How 
            many of them would like using hacked-chrome to access sites? Why
            not mainline it on Chrome?
                Google doesn't do privacy  hmm.

        2d) Where the heck is Firefox in this... or anything free/open...?

        WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE ARE THESE?!!! ZOPMG?!

[Exhibit A] The guy who designed the protocol this depends on says in his paper on the subject that he offers an alternative to GitHub, then they build this derivative project on Electron and host on GitHub lol. o.O Okay, not by itself suspicious but weird and it stuck in my head, spurring more curiosity about individuals/projects/affiliations/home planets.

[Exhibit B] An ex-Mozillan building on a Chrome fork. Huh? Okay. It's a free world, but odd nonetheless. This makes me imagine where the project will go in the future. Will this get mainlined and become a feature in Chrome? What might prevent that? What if I don't wanna... Where's the alternatives? I don't want a Chrome-fork of ill repute on my systems to create more security vulnerabilities. Who reviews their changes? How quick do they roll out patches from upstream? Ack... Hang on a minute.. Google wouldn't want a P2P distributed web.

[Exhibit C] A handful of logos, a little namedropping... That makes me question who/why. Okay, let's see what their actual affiliation is. Code for Science turns out to be legit, and cool, but a tiny group so funding is... personal donations? The others seem to be foundations granting them some cash. Let's see who they are...

[Exhibit D] Upon looking up the Knight Foundation's recent dealings, I find they're now owned by a media company making its money from advertising, according to their SEC filings. Woah now, not friends of privacy, or P2P. What gives? Maybe the company has nothing to do with the foundation's activities, so I dig. Well, they're not in a position to spend money on bleeding edge tech, holy cow they're hemorrhaging money and have been for a while. Let's Google em and see why... Googling turns up fiascoes with the NSA, undermining counter-terrorism activities at a level the Inspector General's office deemed greater than all of the leaks by Edward Snowden. Wow that's a lot of heat, it can change a place - and who runs it. $1,000,000,000 USD/yr is a big fucking crowbar to leverage a company with. Susceptible to control? Yes. Motives to control? Yes. Opportunity to infiltrate? That reminds me that I haven't Googled the rest of the staff. This yields information that an adviser on the project is a GSA employee, in 18F - data. By itself that means little, but...

[Exhibit E] Giving their Fed (lol can't resist, sorry Jay-quith, it's meant in good fun) the benefit of the doubt, I Google him and find his anti-Trump tweetfest. Lol, ok, but you're a fed right? So why the Hillarsque feed? When I was in service, I wouldn't have undermined POTUS publicly, but kids these days are different, still seems like a weird fed. So I look up the 18F department handbook, hiring policies, and what kinds of people work there. He wouldn't fit in for a second by the sound of it, and... what is this? Don't they need clearances? Yes... For Open Data, we need an SF85a/SF86 do we? Huh, okay. Wtf? Moving on... Secretly Open Data?

Ok, so basically what I meant to say this morning is that the software, the project, its apparent contributors, and purpose all seem very nice, open, pro- freedom and sharing, targeted at people interested in decentralization and P2P sharing. Cool, they've got ex-mozilla people and they're 100% javascript buzzword compliant. They've got inspiring LinkedIns and professionally written bios. What hacker-for-public-good has traditional academia roots, gov ties, and likes Google/GitHub and Big Data _TM_ but aligns with Mozilla in a past life? Kinda strange, not incriminating, but those cool looking people are dependent on organizations and technology which they Beaker/Dat/Codeforscience.org) do not control. These forces have agendas which oppose the goals of this project.

One adviser is employed by the US government in an agency concerned with these matters, which seems fine, but I don't like single government anything really . Where is everyone else at the party? Curiouser still: When does gov+P2P anything mix? Who is accountable when I serve pirated media content I am unknowingly hosting via P2P using beaker? In some places using such software is illegal for that reason. Who takes down the page when I serve up bomb plans? There's one strong reason privacy may be intentionally broken, or at least cast aside. Deniability for people hosting the mirrored content is there, but it leaves nobody accountable for a DMCA notice or law enforcement action right? Unless they can come kick my door, then it's fine. See why they might not wanna have any kind of anonymity on such a network? Call it paranoia if you wish - whatever. It demonstrates a conflict between the design, and the objectives of involved parties. There are dozens of reasons why gov+p2p typically have nothing to do with one another, which would give some compelling reasons for a gov to want to put some boots on the ground, maybe manipulate the playing field a little. At least, they're solid grounds for gov to be anti-(beaker+privacy) combos.

One company which owns a foundation supporting the project makes its money primarily in an industry which is infamous for tracking, privacy invasions, selling and mishandling of user data, and exploiting user browsing behavior, but they are asking me to trust their modified browser and server, you need to run a modded httpd to serve "legacy browser" users with normal DNS etc.) I was under the impression that the contemporary cybersecurity concerns of users and governments were focused on improving privacy, not creating monetary partnerships with media companies.

So, wondering what the biz model is, where the money flows and why, and why government (read: THATS _YOU_ FED! lol) _may_ be interested and might present challenges to using it in the way I would like, for anonymous and open exchange of data. If you've been involved in research, defense, or fedgov the reasons are apparent. Well, doesn't mean they _are_ involved, or even _care about it_, but they may at some point care a lot, if history is an indicator. GitHub stands to lose a little here, maybe, so I doubt they'll jump to the front with their credit card in hand to help. Google sure won't benefit, and that sure is a lot of work for such a small team to tackle, so how are they gonna maintain this? Is this gonna be a forever-separated fork of Chrome? Will Google get shitty and try to break compatibility or prevent usage of Beaker or its features to protect their investments? Doubt they'll help at any rate.

Summary It seems like they're a project which is working for open data and an open web with the very people who want to prevent this at any cost and are in a position to be forced by those people to alter their behavior. The software this is built on is not privacy focused or even aware, and the project itself in no way ensures privacy or anonymity, and is controlled by parties who have interests counter to the goals of the project, so why would I invest my time-money in helping something which is at best naive, and at worst doomed to fail. I love the concept but WTF, how is _this_ the way to accomplish the goals of Dat, Beaker, or the pro-P2P community? By building in anti-privacy technologies and stakeholders?

I hope this makes more sense. Thanks!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentat...

Flag this all you want, I'm a transgender female coder with a wife who also is a computer scientist. Silence me some more while you post headlines about women you hypocrites. Be sure to preach about freedom of speech too.