Simply because if you were to ban this type of platform you wouldn't need Musk to "move it towards the far right" because you would already be the very definition of a totalitarian regime.
But whatever zombie government France is running can't "ban" X anyway because it would get them one step closer to the guillotine. Like in the UK or Germany it is a tinderbox cruising on a 10-20% approval rating.
If "French prosecutor" want to find a child abuse case they can check the Macron couple Wikipedia pages.
> if you were to ban this type of platform you wouldn't need Musk to "move it towards the far right" because you would already be the very definition of a totalitarian regime
Paradox of tolerance. (The American right being Exhibit A for why trying to let sunlight disinfect a corpse doesn’t work.)
> The VM must be publicly accessible on TCP ports 80 and 443, and UDP port 3478.
> A public domain name that resolves to the VM’s public IP address.
Since it already uses DNS it's disappointing that it hardcodes ports instead of using SRV records. IMO anything that can use SRV records should. It makes for a more robust internet.
For someone who want to setup a private network between host/devices, I feel the dilemma is always:
1. Trust a third party like Tailscale by giving them the key to your kingdom, but everything is incredibly easy and secure.
2. Self-host but need at least one host with a fixed IP address and an open port on the Internet. What requires a set of security skills and constant monitoring. That includes headscale, selhosted netbird, zerotier or a private yggdrasil mesh.
You can conceal that open port with some form of port knocking. Though this does reinforce your "easy" point.
Also, if it's an UDP port, then using a protocol that expects first client packet to be pre-authenticated and not emitting any response otherwise gets you pretty damn close to having this port closed.
I looked into it but it seems that port knocking and Single Packet AuthZ literally open the firewall and expose the port when used.
Meaning it is great to reveal the SSH port when needed, do your business quickly and close it back when you are done. But my guess is those overlay networks need to port available all the time, so...
When I look at these zero trust solutions need 80/443 for what seems some type of bootstrapping
Better it happens using the same approach wireguard takes (udp/stateless). Though I'm not sure if there's more than just bootstrap taking place, maybe constant routing updates etc
Why do you think thats against the principles of zero trust? Wireguard is a wire transport, it has no control plane... I think what you are alluding to is the centralised control plane which makes it possible to operate at scale (and much more).
You could use a solution that allows you to have E2E with private sovereign keys on the endpoint, as well as bring your own IdP/PKI, so the provider does not have your keys. Would that be good enough?
If Europe wants to reach digital independence it really has to look at thew big picture.
1. European banks mostly sell debt and Nasdaq/Magnificent 7 stocks to their clients. This is what EU citizen invest in.
2. Data centers run on semiconductors made in Asia and cheap energy. Software is almost "the easy part".
3. The whole migration to "the Cloud" (aka MS/AWS/Google), CAPEX to OPEX transition during the ZIRP era was a scam sold by the same ruling class that now tell you need to revert to the previous model.
4. Human capital has to be considered. Having big consulting shops making banks on exploiting foreigners is not a sustainable path to build digital independence (see the content of the recent trade deal with India, an US and Russia ally).
I have been on both side and the problem is really:
- 1. To be able to filter the incredible amount of fake/very low quality candidates and offers.
- 2. Dealing with the incredibly incompetent HR/Talent function which is dominant even in small companies.
The result is the recruitment process is very long and sometimes openly sadistic.
I have been sometimes motivated to go through it just to stick a big "NO" in their face at the end. Because by the end you know there is no way you want to have to deal with that crazy HR department for years and the whole company is probably disfunctional.
So there is no supply or demand shortage, just an inability to do basic matchmaking.
Only the LinkedIn, SaaS All-in-one-HR recruitment tools and consulting companies win in this market.
But LinkedIn is Tinder for corporations, in the end only sociopaths enjoy it.
I feel all of this has been going on for the last 50 years. TV and video games were a substitute for a normal environment for kids to develop in the at the end of the last century.
> We live in times where parents and schools no longer have the authority to enforce behavior
Yes but the problem is much deeper.
I often observer various "families" with their kids on holidays. The French and the Brits are really a nightmare, strangely the same countries who are now banning social media. But my guess is this is more of chicken than an egg problem.
You will often have an hysterical woman, totally deranged and often alone, screaming constantly on the kids for no reasons. You wish you could call child protective services on them and this is only when they are "relaxing" on holiday.
We know those kids are gonna get into weird internet things and drugs anyway to escape this world. France can write any law they want it is not gonna solve the problem and send them back to any "equilibrium".
Blaming TV, video games and now social media 20 years late is just a way to avoid talking about the real problem.
> I feel all of this has been going on for the last 50 years. TV and video games were a substitute for a normal environment for kids to develop in the at the end of the last century.
Not really, I was born in the 80s and video games did help me know a lot of people I still hang out with.
I really do not think European countries had "free speech" like it is understood in the US.
After WWII you mostly had state run and controlled TV and radio. And some more freedom in the written press but still most countries mandate Legal deposit [0] sometimes since the Middle Ages. Legal deposit is just the granddaddy of what we understand the Internet is in China.
You could really get in trouble easily.
Then mass media were liberalized and put under the control of big corporations in the 1970-80s what gave the illusion of more freedom.
But the WWW really brought the US free speech standards to the entire developed world in the 90-2000s. This is why people under 50 understand "free speech" according to this standard.
The "you get put in jail because of a meme on Facebook" is really a return to normal after a 20 year pause on the Internet. If you don't fight for it, it will never last.
Starmer, like most leaders in the EU, has an 18% approval rating. He really can't afford free speech for its subjects.
Let's not forget Big tech is also fueled by the rest of the world and Europe.
If you walk into a bank in Europe and have some money to invest they will sell you mostly debt and the "Magnificent Seven" or a funds with those stocks inside.
The EU is ridiculous when it says it want to built an alternative because it's entire financial/banking system end up fueling the saving of its citizen into those companies.
This is also why we end up in that absurd situation where the Mag 7 make up 1/3 of the S&P 500 market cap.
If the EU is serious about offering an alternative (which I doubt) it needs to offer a sustainable path for its people to invest in it. Not do another fake program where insiders will grab some public money and get nowhere (it has been tried for 25 years).
> If the EU is serious about offering an alternative (which I doubt) it needs to offer a sustainable path for its people to invest in it.
Did US government do something like that? If US has some attractive investments and EU does not, why don't they? I mean, EU citizens would probably like to invest in EU companies, much better than in US companies, they are not some self-haters to refuse a good investment just because it's in EU, right? So why don't they invest there? Why do they invest in US instead and there is a need in a special action - not taken prior to now - to enable them to invest in the EU?
But whatever zombie government France is running can't "ban" X anyway because it would get them one step closer to the guillotine. Like in the UK or Germany it is a tinderbox cruising on a 10-20% approval rating.
If "French prosecutor" want to find a child abuse case they can check the Macron couple Wikipedia pages.
reply