The approach to taxing isn’t determined by this tool, but by the government. What this tool tries to prevent is hidden money exchanges, which affect both methods of taxing, not only flat taxes but also income-based taxes (since a hidden sale is giving the seller a hidden income and potentially placing them at a lower income tax class).

I’m expecting that if she has been scammed and her token was stolen, you can report this token to the police and they might be able to ask the banking system in which account was this token deposited, to hopefully trace the scammer back.

If so, this looks safer than the scams that ask grandmas to get giftcard codes.

But that’s assuming that the token was obtained from grandm’s bank and not that the grandma paid a scammer in some other untraceable way to obtain a fake token from the scammer. That would be a different kind of scam.

True. Also, it would be helpful to actually understand what kind of metadata is this referring to and specifically in which cases does this apply and which cases are exempt… because I expect that if the design of a service explicitly makes it so all the metadata you can collect is not helpful/reliable, then you wouldn’t be forced to redesign the service, you’ll just provide metadata that’s unreliable.

I feel these kind of measures never are really effective at stopping organized criminal activity (since those looking for a way will find it), what they are effective at is tracing/tracking non-criminal private use.

Does the DCO really offer a real guarantee? it looks like it just adds a Signed-off-by John line at the end of the commit, with no actual signature checking that enforces any particular version of a particular document is being acknowledged. IANAL but it doesn’t look like something proven to work in court to give legal protection.

Sure, it’s easier to simply add a sign-off-by line than actually accepting a legal agreement, so it reduces the barrier of entry, but if this were really enough to establish the conditions to shift liability then I don’t see why companies wouldn’t start using their own DCOs and extending them, essentially just being a more convenient CLA (which is a license agreement, not a copyright transfer, even if some might add terms that allow relicensing… which anyway is already possible given the project is already MIT licensed).

I mean… isn’t the point of decentralization that you can build your own service with the same protocol and still communicate with the other services?

There are ongoing initiatives for alternative stacks speaking the AT protocol, like Northsky, or Indiesky.

There’s also community-run labelers and blocklists for moderation. You can make the moderation stronger, what you might not be able to do is make it weaker if the PDS takes an account down fully, or the indexer/relay refuses to use it.

This depends entirely of what you mean by “of Windows” and what you mean by “for Linux”. This terminology is ambiguous.

Are you a Lemmy user for lemmy.world, or are you a lemmy.world user for Lemmy?

It’s also inconsistent because when they say, for example, “Microsoft Azure Linux Container Host for AKS”, they are talking about running a Microsoft Azure Linux Container inside of AKS, not a container that is meant to be used for running AKS within it…

If, by supporting this theoretical Nazi science genius, I enable him to better perform Nazism, then I have been morally complicit in his Nazism

If you think anything that could benefit him is enabling that, then there’s all sort of things that are complicit. Even the public social services and the State might be complicit, even people who pay taxes might be complicit… international influence/opinion, the whole world, society would be complicit.

I’m a believer of honesty and direct punishment for direct precise problems. The more abstract the punishment, the most likely it is you’d end up with the innocent paying for the sins of the guilty.

I think people should be aware of the exact reasons why something is bad, as opposed to punishing a general abstraction without actually addressing the root of the problem. I’ve seen how this often results in people religiously believing something is good/bad based on sheep thinking, and this leads to situations that actually create more Nazis than what they destroy. An unjust punishment is just a badly patched up wound that will not really heal and instead extend to other parts. Have you considered this in your calculation of moral consequences?

How about we just tell the truth as is?

But that’s exactly what I mean when I say recommend good software and recommend good thoughts.

Why do you assume I wanna “hide” problematic information? Did I say that? What I’m saying is don’t hide the fact that good things are good. The good car will be a good car, and the manufacturer being problematic will be a problematic manufacturer.

Recommending the good car does not imply that you support the manufacturer, and denouncing the manufacturer does not imply that their cars are bad and not something we should recommend.

What’s the manufacturer of the device you are using right now?

If a notorious criminal created a cure for cancer, I’ll sing praises to his amazing work, asking everyone to use it. But that dos not mean I approve of their crimes. It would be perfectly consistent with my praise of his work to, at the same time, ask for him to to be judged and sentenced accordingly for the crimes he committed…

The world is not black and white. People are not angels just because they have one good thought, nor do they become monsters that poison everything they touch if they have one wrong thought.

So the bad thing is the off chance that he would benefit?

Because that’s a very different thing. Then this should not be about judging morals related to the thing they made, but executing punishment for a completely separate thing they did.

Then it’s not a disagreement of morals, it’s a disagreement on the approach you are taking to execute that punishment.

I’d be very wary of using any of his breakthroughs

Ah, but will you still use them? will you promote his breakthroughs if they help people? what if his scientific work leads to the cure for cancer?

Punish the nazi political work, promote the scientific work.

The more people learn to drive, the bigger the chance they’ll get a private car, the more accidents, the more people will die. Thus: let’s recommend everyone to not learn to drive.

I feel this path is sort of a baby-sitting approach to recommendations. Not only do I have to know if the software if good before recommending it, I also have to research if there’s a chance that whoever I’m recommending it to might find a community somewhere for which they might lack enough critical thinking to judge on by themselves?

How about we recommend good software when it’s good while at the same time recommending good ideals / good thoughts when they are good?

It’s morally wrong to promote bad things, and morally good to promote good things.

Just because I admire the theories Isaac Newton came up with and I encourage others to learn about them does not mean I support everything Isaac Newton did, said or thought.

All of our society is built on the shoulders of giants who did a lot of “good” despite being, in most cases, “bad people”.