So how does nostr propose to solve the problem where there is, in fact, quite a lot of content that you want to filter out, whether because it makes for a better experience for the people using this protocol to talk to each other, or because there are some pretty solid laws about things that various governments require people to filter out?
https://abovethelaw.com/2022/11/hey-elon-let-me-help-you-spe... is a pretty decent rundown of a mix of these things; it is specifically pointed at Elon Musk's decision to buy Twitter and make it a haven for "free speech" but it is a glimpse at what is in the future for anyone setting up a "free speech" platform.
My experience as someone who has been running a Mastodon server since 2017 is that while "we are all for FREE SPEECH, we only block what the government ABSOLUTELY requires us to block!" sounds noble, in practice nodes of the Fediverse that say this become havens for people who are only there to be assholes to other people, and any sane admin will sigh and block the whole server, because it's just going to be a continual source of rude nasty bullshit.
To anyone full of regret, I'd just like to give a quote by Marcus Aurelius (a Roman Emperor and stoic philosopher)
Think of yourself as dead. You have lived your life. Now take what's left and live it properly.
Life likely hasn't been perfect for almost anyone, but would you rather die right now (with likely unfinished desires, wishes and more regrets) or would you try to make the best use of what you have?
(It may be a bit difficult to fully live as per the quote even if you're already familiar with stoicism - it's quite hard for me too - but something that sometimes helps me is to literally visualize yourself dead as of now.
You don't gave to measure every one of these, of course. In my experience they are more or less correlated: good lifestyle interventions improve many measures at once.
SMART goals regarding these KPIs are pretty obvious.
As someone who very much enjoys tinkering with Linux and such, but also likes trying to onboard other people who aren't as techy, Syncthing is such a killer example. It's almost depressing because I want other free and open source stuff to be this good, though I know the economics (and proprietary interference, perhaps?) make that tough.
I hear this a lot from people. When I go grocery shopping I have bags and boxes for nearly everything I purchase. When I order items on Amazon I get boxes and tons of packing materials. What is a better alternative that does not generate tons of trash?
Blue Apron also does a good job at allowing you to send back the materials so they can recycle them. I just point this out as I think they get a lot of criticism for a company that I don't think generates more trash than a lot of alternatives and they give an option to recycle.
I have intimate personal experience with the FCRA. Sadly I don't have an hour to talk about it at the moment, but ping me any time. Short version: it's one of the most absurdly customer-friendly pieces of legislation in the US, assuming you know how to work it. There exist Internet communities where they basically do nothing but assist each other with using the FCRA to get legitimate debts removed from their credit report, which, when combined with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, means you can essentially unilaterally absolve yourself of many debts if the party currently owning it is not on the ball for compliance.
The brief version, with the exact search queries you'll want bracketed: you send a [debt validation letter] under the FCRA to the CRAs. This starts a 30 day clock, during which time they have to get to the reporter and receive evidence from the reporter that you actually own the debt. If that clock expires, the CRAs must remove that tradeline from your report and never reinstate it. Roughly simultaneously with that letter, you send the collection agency a [FDCPA dispute letter], and allege specifically that you have "No recollection of the particulars of the debt" (this stops short of saying "It isn't mine"), request documentation of it, and -- this is the magic part -- remind them that the FDCPA means they have to stop collection activities until they've produced docs for you. Collection activities include responding to inquiries from the CRAs. If the CRA comes back to you with a "We validated the debt with the reporter." prior to you hearing from the reporter directly, you've got documentary evidence of a per-se violation of the FDCPA, which you can use to get the debt discharged and statutory damages (if you sue) or just threaten to do that in return for the reporter agreeing to tell the CRA to delete the tradeline.
No response from the CRA? You watch your mail box like a hawk for the next 30 days. Odds are, you'll get nothing back from the reporter in that timeframe, because most debt collection agencies are poorly organized and can't find the original documentation for the debt in their files quickly enough. Many simply won't have original documentation -- they just have a CSV file from the original lender listing people and amounts.
If you get nothing back from the reporter in 30 days, game over, you win. The CRA is now legally required to delete the tradeline and never put it back. Sometimes you have to send a few pieces of mail to get this to stick. You will probably follow-up on this with a second letter to the reporter, asserting the FDCPA right to not receive any communication from them which is inconvenient, and you'll tell them that all communication is inconvenient. (This letter is sometimes referred to as a [FOAD letter], for eff-off-and-die.) The reporter's only possible choices at that point are to abandon collection attempts entirely or sue you. If they sue you prior to sending validation, that was a very bad move, because that is a per-se FDCPA violation and means your debt will be voided. (That assumes you owe it in the first place. Lots of the people doing these mechanics actually did owe the debt at one point, but are betting that it can't be conveniently demonstrated that they owe the debt.)
If the reporter sends a letter: "Uh, we have you in a CSV file." you wait patiently until day 31 then say "You've failed to produce documentary evidence of this debt under the FDCPA. Accordingly, you're barred from attempting to collect on it. If you dispute that this is how the FDCPA works, meet me in any court of competent jurisdiction because I have the certified mail return receipt from the letter I sent you and every judge in the United States can count to 30." and then you file that with the CRA alleging "This debt on my credit report is invalid." The CRA will get in touch with the debt collection company, have their attempt timeout, and nuke the trade line. You now still technically speaking owe money but you owe it to someone who can't collect on the debt, (licitly [+]) sell it, or report it against your credit.
I just outlined the semi-abusive use of those two laws, but the perfectly legitimate use (for resolving situations like mine, where my credit report was alleging that I owed $X00,000 in debts dating to before I was born) is structurally similar. My dropbox still has 30 PDFs for letters I sent to the 3 CRAs, several banks, and a few debt collection companies disputing the information on my report and taking polite professional notice that there was an easy way out of this predicament for them but that if they weren't willing to play ball on that I was well aware of the mechanics of the hard way.
[+] Owing more to disorganization and incompetence than malice, many debt collection companies will in fact sell debts which they're not longer legally entitled to. This happened to me twice. I sent out two "intent to sue" letters and they fixed the problem within a week.
[Edit: I last did this in 2006 and my recollection on some of the steps I took was faulty, so I've corrected them above and made it a little more flow-charty.]
https://abovethelaw.com/2022/11/hey-elon-let-me-help-you-spe... is a pretty decent rundown of a mix of these things; it is specifically pointed at Elon Musk's decision to buy Twitter and make it a haven for "free speech" but it is a glimpse at what is in the future for anyone setting up a "free speech" platform.
My experience as someone who has been running a Mastodon server since 2017 is that while "we are all for FREE SPEECH, we only block what the government ABSOLUTELY requires us to block!" sounds noble, in practice nodes of the Fediverse that say this become havens for people who are only there to be assholes to other people, and any sane admin will sigh and block the whole server, because it's just going to be a continual source of rude nasty bullshit.