At the Vienna main railway station (Wien Hbf) there is or was an ATM, operated by Erste Bank, where you can choose to get 200 euro notes.

Sounds similar to the 200 euro note. Though I did once manage to withdraw one from an ATM, and it was accepted at a grocery store without problems.

Both of these terms have more than one meaning, some of which overlap with each other, so the question is impossible to answer objectively. Both terms can refer to a belief system that people would usually describe as “left-wing” (~ “anarchism”, “libertarian socialism”, “left-libertarianism”, “anarcho-communism”), or one that people would usually describe as “right-wing” (~ “anarcho-capitalism”, “(right-)libertarianism”, “minarchism”).

Myself, I use “libertarian” as the antonym of “authoritarian”, so “libertarian” is a positive term for me; after all (like most people) I think authoritarianism is a bad thing. But libertarianism doesn’t need to be, nor is it usually, completely 100% against all hierarchy and all authority. It can still hold that some hierarchy and authority is necessary for getting things to function, but that it should be limited or accountable.

I don’t consider myself any sort of “anarchist”, I think it’s impossible to completely do away with authority, hierarchy, or government, no matter how much I think those things should have limits to their powers.

Of course I also very strongly believe that what leftists call “capitalism” (i.e. the economic system the world currently mostly runs on) is not, like they say, just another class society where the function of the state is to keep the ruling class in power. There are no formally defined classes in a liberal democracy like there were under feudalism. The mere existence of private property rights and wage labor doesn’t create a class society; those things have existed for millennia of human history and are here to stay. So for that reason I disagree with anarcho-communists when they say that in an “anarchy”, there would no longer be private property.

If I had grown up with them since childhood, I don’t think they’d be difficult. I didn’t though, and have no need to learn them. They all look like randomly aligned boxes to me and learning them doesn’t sound like a fun activity at all.

set it to sorting by “new comments”, it’s what I did to make sure I see somewhat different things most of the time I refresh it

I don’t wear shorts if the daily maximum is going to be below 30°C. Way too cold with shorts.

Yes, but that’s not the case in all or even most countries. In my country most constitutional amendments can be made by a two-thirds majority in the legislature. Usually this involves the government coalition negotiating with one or more opposition parties to vote with them.

Of course there are other countries where there is no constitution (in the sense of a supreme law that other laws are subordinate to and can be struck down by the courts if they don’t comply with it) at all, e.g. the UK.

Because the US does not have referendum.

I think it would probably be possible for Congress to pass a law with a clause “this law is subject to a referendum and shall go into effect only if approved by a majority of voters” or similar. That’s pretty much something any legislature can do if it wants to, even if the constitution doesn’t specifically authorize it. But I don’t think this has ever happened in the US.

In my country the constitution specifically authorizes this and it has happened once, which resulted in a law passed by the legislature not taking effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Austrian_nuclear_power_referendum

What exactly did Clinton do “a couple times” in regards to referendums?!

The process for amending the US constitution doesn’t involve referendums.

I think big tech has proven that it cannot be trusted. Their priorities are simply not in alignment with our own.

agreed

Legislation seems to be the only lever that can hope to rein them in (market forces are no longer strong enough).

I don’t agree. The Internet, at least when not regulated to death, allows new websites to rise and old ones to fall, this has happened many times and can happen again in the future.

At the same time, smaller networks do not have the resources to comply with government regulations to a T

agreed

and so they should be given a longer leash

Not easy to implement in terms of legislation.

Governments also do not have the resources to chase down

and you want to rely on governments not having resources to do things that laws say they could do?

algorithms are

Everything that happens on a computer is based on algorithms. Chronological sorting of everything you’re following is still an algorithm. But I get what you mean.

I agree with you that modern personalized recommendation algorithms like the big social media platforms are based on are not a good thing (for people of any age). They break the Internet’s original promise that it should be the general public who decides on what we exchange ideas about on the Internet. They turn social media operators into (essentially) media companies by picking winners with lots of reach and losers with little reach…

But none of that has anything to do with how old any users are.

u wot m8

The article simultaneously takes the positions:

• that it’s a good and acceptable thing that governments are banning social media for young people, prescribing how social media companies must design their platforms, that the recent court ruling on “social media addiction” was well decided. (in the section “How Governments Are Regulating Social Media”)
• that we should move to services independent from big tech companies, such as the fediverse. (in the section “How Social Media Platforms Could Be Redesigned”)

Do they not see that these are, at least in practice, contradictory positions? For big tech companies, it’s possible to comply with the kinds of government regulations described there, they have hordes of lawyers who can advise them how to do that. For fediverse instance admins meanwhile, it is a lot more difficult to do that. The future of the fediverse absolutely depends on governments staying out of the Internet as much as possible, especially from applying their laws to foreign website operators. All that government regulation does is make sure no one who doesn’t have a revenue from which they can pay any claims they are liable for can ever operate a website where users can participate.

more national instances would probably solve that, i think, so you can just go to your local one.

That’s roughly how I chose my instance… I thought I’d choose an instance geographically close to me for latency reasons and such. I didn’t know anything about different Lemmy instances at the time and didn’t (for example) know that my instance actually hosts very few popular communities, so I’d be participating mostly in remote ones. :D

No, but I remember once reading an online post where someone didn’t know they were allergic to (certain?) cheese and thought everyone reacted to it the way they did.

There are many places other than “disaster response areas” in the world where tap water isn’t safe to drink.

I agree with you when it comes to bottled non-sparkling water at home. But sparkling water doesn’t come from public fountains nor do those exist everywhere you might travel to.

So you’re agreeing with me that this was supported by both parties…?

(I’m actually Austrian, not German; I have however read enough about US politics that I’m fairly confident in my statement above.)

Garuda Linux will not implement any age verification measures, since Garuda Linux’s legal jurisdictions have no laws mandating age verification.

Yes. That’s how it should be, that on the Internet you only have to comply with laws where you or the servers you are hosting things on are based, and all other places can piss off when it comes to enforcing their laws.

And it’s how it mostly used to work, but we now live in this world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_and_indictment_of_Pavel_Durov

One of my childhood dreams was to run my own successful web forum. Now that we live in this world where that means countries might prosecute me because my users have been doing things that are illegal somewhere in the world, that dream is officially dead. >:(

The big deal is that it’s on the heels of age verification bullshit that fascists are pushing through with the help of tech bros, so that they can eventually push all of us into a scenario where we have zero privacy.

That’s a bit difficult to argue in a world where the most prominent of such laws was passed in California, where Democrats control the entire legislative process.

I have not looked up the voting record for it, but would suspect that, like most of the worst laws in the US, it was enthusiastically supported by both parties? Am I wrong about that?

you mean like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutraloaf or what