Detection - Duplicate SHA256

I'm effortposting like mommy ashley!

To the dude that I'm responding to: we're on the same side here, even if we disagree on some things so don't take too many of my points below as shitting on you, more like a spirited conversation, because the fact that you give a fuck about technology/privacy/alternative internet culture etc at all is great.

>>23923
>Should Ashley remove cp links if they are posted? Is that censorship?
plz see:
>>23890
>As long as it's not illegal, it should stay up.
if you need to be moderated harder a hobbyist image board is probably going to disappoint you. Let's not forget Ashley one time spammed her own board back on endchan with gay scat pornography in a (hilarious) attempt to get control back from the nerd who refused to give it to her. This is a fun little board to check every now and then and shitpost a bit with the boys and that includes ash.

>but phones are about as capable as computers in terms of creation
I'm sorry, because I actually really want us to have one conversation on tubgirl that's an actual discussion and not a "debate," but this is a really stupid statement. I mean I could elaborate but c'mon, even the snazziest modern phone is going to be absolute dog shit compared to an $800 desktop PC in terms of ease of use, software availability, etc.

Also, there's a not so subtle undercurrent of your whole position about why the internet's quality has (supposedly) degraded that basically blames the whole thing on the heckin minorities. If only those nigs had stayed away from the white man's digital paradise things would be so much better!

Except that's stupid, because if you had been online in the early days (maybe you were), you'd know that it's not any one race that's the problem, it's fucking <span class="em">normies that are the problem, dude. And unfortunately, normies come in all colors. One of the big benefits of the internet back in the day was that far, far fewer people really identified themselves beyond a pseudonym, and therefore, you didn't know if the person you were chatting with on IRC was black, or a woman, or gay, or whatever, because people wouldn't advertise all their little IRLsies team affiliations. Yes, I'm sure you can cherry pick but I was there and at least in the circles I ran in, it just wasn't done. You could have internet friends for YEARS without knowing their name, where they lived, how old they were, what race they were, what gender they were, etc. In fact, it was considered largely beneficial that you <span class="em">didn't have to reveal all this information, unlike how you're forced to in real life, all them time, just by existing. Haven't you ever read the hacker's manifesto? "We exist without skin color, without nationality, without religious bias..."

Also, the internet can be pretty great IF you avoid normie hotspots like twitter or facebook or whatever. I actually have a fine time with it because I simply ignore the normies like I always have, or use them as cringe fuel.

>My position is that these communities must be free and open for discussion of any topic, but also totally and unapologetically exclusive.
I actually strongly agree with you here, particularly the last bit about exclusivity. Gatekeeping is underrated.

>>23925
I see where you're coming from but here's why I disagree. Consider that the vast majority of the population:
- does not use a VPN
- does not use cryptocurrency (and the vast majority of cryptocurrency users are retards setting up coinbase accounts and have no idea how to acquire the stuff privately)
- does not use uncensored websites (the internet = facebook/pornhub for them)
- already owns a cell phone
I think we can agree on the above, right? It's not a stretch. So imagine you're a lawmaker/reptile and 99.5% of your niggercattle are already behaving the way you want. <span class="em">You've already won. Your slaves are already doing exactly what you want them to - who gives a SHIT about the 0.5% of people who are awake?

Again, I do see where you're coming from on this, but in reality I haven't seen things playing out this way. Take Monero for example. We know that the government (particularly the IRS) has a boner for it, right? Where are the laws banning it? They don't NEED to ban Monero, they just regulate the fuck out of all the normalfag centralized exchanges, who then drop XMR due to compliance issues, like Binance did (on the surface, anyway). They know that the subset of the population that uses crypto is tiny, and the subset of the crypto-using population that <span class="em">actually understands why using a centralized exchange is bad and why self custody is good is even smaller than that. There's no need to ban Monero, which is why they haven't (and, I believe, likely will not).

Monero is just one example but I think you'll see that this logic applies to a lot of other things. It literally doesn't matter to the "elite" if there's a ultra-tiny privacy-aware slice of the population that they have a harder time tracking. We're a rounding error.