And then we can do US

Which is keep the current world order of countries doing such dominating?

And nobody will obey that decision.

ICJ has made some rulings about Artsakh too. Should have been not so hard to sanction the beheading savages out of occupying a small country and expelling its residents. By the way, in the UN charter a “country” does not only refer to UN members, that distinction is intentionally made clear in a few places.

UN is less useful than Holy Roman Empire.

That’s true. Ancaps love to talk how almost anything government-done can be done by private entities in the right conditions and social consensus. Turns out this is true for censorship too.

I’m completely ideology-agnostic at this point. Whatever works, works. Nothing around seems to work though.

In any case, while this is true, power goes the shortest way and power corrupts. USA is the hegemon of our world and the center of our civilization, which is now united by American English language and American technologies, and what’s the worst, American corporations. Much more power goes its way to corrupt it.

You know how bad people like to grease in shit the right tools for fixing the problem, preventively? That Putinist thing about “multi-polar” world means that they want to be a little hegemon too, and to have free reign in gray zones. But there is a similar sane point.

But really decentralization of tech research and production and standards is something we all need else we vanish. Right now we have one big Internet with one set of protocols, a handful of very complex software stacks everybody uses, and this situation should already be called a centralized one. Due to network effects and other, mostly with fake argument, kinds of pressure it doesn’t make sense for most people to use parallel systems.

A de-facto conglomerate of companies, social groups, interests and ideas can be a monopolist too.

The guy who answered you is actually right.

Outright military interventions and coups are part of the package called the real world.

Anyway, I would replace “capitalist” with “bandit” here. Because “capitalism” is just as square-abstract as “communism”, while IRL just as vulnerable to those.

See, there’s an important thing called “feedback”. If there’s no feedback from you, your life doesn’t matter and you get stomped upon.

60s-70s USSR had very weak feedback mechanisms, but still surprisingly better than today’s Russia. Some things that people just accept today would cause real protests there. Half the ministries would be paralyzed by people saying that following such a policy is against their conscience. I really believe that, yes.

But then, due to its slow collapse and decay, those feedbacks becoming stronger started pushing for change that would deprive the ruling class - KGB and similar or related people, bureaucrats and relatives, anyway, the real structures usually don’t have names, - of power. That’s when that class hijacked the popular movement from the likes of Sakharov or Starovoitova and created modern post-Soviet states.

Which means that it had blind zones with no feedbacks said class used. And the more centralist-bureaucratic and non-transparent a state is, the more blind zones it has.

Anything that takes the power from being distributed between separate people and assembles it into one Moloch, calling it “power of the people”, controlled by hell knows whom, means that those people who actually have principles will get stomped.

As we can see, though, same things happen in countries very far from being “communist” or “socialist”.

Once you read enough about post-WWII Soviet military doctrine, you’ll realize that the Cold War is the reason the Hot War didn’t happen. Not like Vietnam and so on, but real hot.

Why? Because that doctrine was quite simple. Soviet ground forces after its adoption sucked donkey balls because they were intended to mop up what remains after nuking Europe. BMP-1 sucked donkey balls because it wasn’t an armored transport, it was a protected transport. To rapidly cross rivers and swamps on irradiated terrain, while kinda protecting people inside from radiation, not from bullets even. The whole reason USSR’s ground forces after WWII had a reduced peacetime component, but huge mobilization plans and mass warfare approaches, is that they were expected to die from radiation a lot, so why bank on quality.

EDIT: And contrary to the common perception, even in WWII human waves were not the tactic of choice of USSR’s military. So this was a conscious change, an enormous reform. I can say I can’t avoid the feeling of huge respect for people who would really tackle the numbers and warfare theory to produce such a plan to nuke half the world and possibly emerge as a victor. However, the reforms after that plan made already corrupt Soviet bureaucracy even more corrupt, and discarded experienced and principled people, recent world war veterans, from the military in droves, which long-term made USSR’s failure certain. Before the post-war rebuilding and Khruschev some of its institutions and systems were still respected. Stalin’s regime was horrible, but it was also less corrupt. After Stalin’s death and the following events, nobody managed to say “we failed and we should sit and think”. Well, Kosygin’s reforms which were not completed, growth of MIC, use of soldiers and students as workforce, slow decay, KGB thieves\assassins and degenerate fascists becoming the ruling class since late 70s, the rest is known.

Unless you make a p2p system and search comments by page hash in some way (maybe just over I2P?) making it hard for other nodes to understand from which node it comes and which node downloads those comments.

OK, I agree. Not very good. But in theory it can be better.

All such news make me want to live to the time when our world is interesting again. Real AI research, something new instead of the Web we have, something new instead of the governments we have. It’s just that I’m scared of what’s between now and then. Parasites die hard.

A whole world of fascists.

It was not a feudal state. It was roughly similar to post-slavery South in the USA.

Yes, I already wrote they didn’t “achieve communism”. It’s the point of my text that they were promising it in the future in exchange for loyalty to a weird system in the present.

Sorry, wrong comment.

and forced the Soviets to waste resources on a strong military.

Oh, so it’s “the capitalist nations”, not the way Soviet system worked, made this so expensive?

But even despite their failings, communism was still the best thing to ever happen to Russia.

Stolypin and Witte are generally considered something much, much better. The closest it came to a normal society with civilization potential.

Unfortunately, Russia was also the worst thing that ever happened to communism.

One could argue Khmer Rouge were that, but IRL communists’ incredible ability to just pretend it didn’t happen makes USSR the most notable example.

Not necessarily and only those you comment.

That’s the point, to comment any webpage. It’s clear you visited it if you comment it.

Unless you’ve lived in ex-USSR.

Globalization ruined it.

Not like in politics (though similar), but in the sense that instead of a space of generally sane people where you don’t have to follow any conventions of fashion or social expectations of idiots, like a park where people sit in grass and eat sandwiches, it has turned into something like a mall built in place of that park, with guards, ads, bullshit and shopping apes.

There definitely was trash. You just didn’t have to see it. You’d not go to a central recommendations system, like in social nets or search engines. You’d go to web directories and your friends. Like for many things you still do.

Now there’s the fake social pressure of being on corporate platforms. Why fake? Because you still really need and talk to the same amount people you would back then, even fewer.

That fake social pressure was their killer invention. Human psychology is unprepared for critically evaluating the emotions from being able to scroll through half the world of other people right now. They don’t generally use that seemingly easy ability to reach anyone anywhere, while when it was a bit harder, they would, but the fake feeling of having it is very strong.

It’s a mouse trap.

Why was it a bad idea? Seems like a wonderful idea. Minus Gab.

Some kind of web of trust and inheriting ignored users based on it and weights - and it will work.

Nukes are an option, yes.

But as the recent event with exploding pagers has reminded us, global logistics and also systems’ complexity allow for many funny things.

but for the vast majority of people such limited devices will never be adopted and any business producing them will either be niche expensive or fail.

I don’t think that’s true.

Cause the fish is starting, slowly, to suspect that it’s in a net.

All this is creeping surveillance, and the end goal is not commercial, it’s political.

One commandment parents of many people of my age (28) have failed to imprint is - you shall say “nay” and you shall tell jerks to eat shit and die.

There are many distractions, somehow the computer program processing your unencrypted communications being called “AI” becomes important, somehow the difference between that program and the people controlling it becomes important, somehow them being able to censor you becomes important, and somehow requirements to confirm identity become normal.

I felt hot all-encompassing shame many times in my childhood for not remembering things which were unimportant, but people around would remember those. Only now I understand that something in my childhood was a gift.

Seeing what is happening by most general and vague descriptions might help to judge things more soberly.

But younger folks are one shiti event from being believers and we got a lot of shit floating down our way.

They stubbornly ignore the technical component and are even irritated for you daring to suppose that there’s anything important in preventing that shit other than their social and political activity.

They refuse to understand that most of said activity on compromised bot-infested platforms (all the mainstream) is bent in the direction power wants.

The threats are not directly visible, they are abstract, theoretical, hard to feel and touch. While you are near, a real person saying to them that something you know better than them is more important than they think, and something they know better than you is less important than they think.

That tends to create resistance.