Thank you, this is super informative!

So first off, I think it’s safe to assume that the article is not about going and removing IPv4 on your company’s corporate networks for a month, so I’ve been speaking in regards to home internet service.

NAT is not a firewall, but in normal use by the average home internet user it is a means to prevent computers outside of their network from reaching computers inside the network without ports being forwarded on the router, or the internal machine initiating the connection. If you do not have a firewall on the devices, and they are not behind a NAT gateway/router, then they are by default exposing ports. There’s no inherent guarantee that a router has a firewall configured properly, or has it enabled.

I’ve never seen NAT in combination with IPv6 and I’ve seen plenty of deployments at our customers.

I’m interested in how this works. In a normal IPv4 scenario for home internet users, you are assigned a single IP for your router by your ISP, and internal addressing is usually handled by router-resident DHCP automatically. In the deployments you’re seeing, are ISPs handing out /120 blocks to each router? Does that require the ISP to have access to alter your home router, or do customers configure the DHCP themselves (which seems unlikely to scale)?

I admittedly did not read the original Mastodon post from nixCraft about the purpose of No NAT November, but surely it’s not just about moving to IPv6? You can (and usually would) still do NATing with IPv6. You don’t want every device to be internet-exposed, but still want them to be able to access the internet (and who wants to configure internet-defensive firewall rules on all their internal home hosts)?

There’s a reason that FD00::/7 exists.

You can essentially achieve this with some routers with a “DMZ” network segment/ device, so all incoming requests to your external IP get forwarded to it automatically. You don’t even need to disable NAT if you set it up well.

Something the article doesn’t clarify is whether this is meant to only to apply to kids in Australia. Normally that would be obvious, except that Australia already has tried to demand social media companies remove content even for non-Australian users on the basis that Australians could bypass geo blocking with VPNs. If age checks are location/ IP based, they could make the same (bad) argument.

Had us in the first half, not gonna lie…

I actually love my foldable Razr. I never could afford one as a kid, and the smaller form-factor is actually really nice.

Basically yes, a chatbot and the ability to do simple actions (agents). So in their fantasy universe, instead of clicking on Firefox and typing a query in the search bar, you’d ask the desktop to search for something, and it would do those steps.

That’s all just an excuse though, to explain why they need to collect all your local data. :P

Probably none. Now I’ll name one that is large and influential, and isn’t trying to combat the problem: X

No, bots are not real people, so them masquerading as real people holding an opinion is, by definition, misinformation.

This isn’t misinformation.

Right, the other example is. The whole point is the difference between propaganda (the bots) and legitimate political sentiment (all real people). Given that Musk is actively choosing not to combat misinformation bots on his platform, it’s fair to step in.

When these crappy "AI"s finally do displace my job, I will become a fireman, but in the Fahrenheit 451 sense, and it’ll be servers instead of books.

I think it’s important for groups of people to be able to choose to ban propaganda and misinformation, because propaganda is not simply information being imparted, it’s an entire ecosystem of deceptive methods to disseminate information and to alter your perception without you realizing.

If it were calling for the EU banning X solely because they don’t like Musk’s removedty personal opinions, I’d agree with you, but they cite the disinformation, misinformation, and outright propaganda that the platform is being used to spread, and I think that’s perfectly valid.

Take 2 scenarios:

5 million actual people telling you that ‘x’ political view is common and popular, causing you to doubt, or at least temper your own personal beliefs.

500 thousand actual people, plus 4.5 million bot accounts telling you that ‘x’ political view is common and popular, causing you to doubt, or at least temper your own personal beliefs.

In reality, you don’t even need the bot accounts to outnumber the real users if you control the algorithms that determine what people see, which is exactly the situation that X is in right now.

tl;dr This isn’t about banning the viewpoints themselves, it’s about banning a platform that deceptively alters visibility of viewpoints to manipulate people.

Banning things you don’t like is not a solution

Tell that to Musk; X bans TONS of people over their viewpoints.

Sadly true.

Not friendly enough when talking to customers? Bad employee.

Too friendly when talking to customers? Bad employee.

This is just about 1) creating an algorithmic justification for the racial profiling that managers already do, and 2) keeping employees in fear of termination so they put up with bullremoved.

Side story about how removedty retail management is:

When I was working retail years ago (big box electronics store), our management employed a system of getting every new employee to 3 write-ups as fast as they could (I’m talking, within a month of starting), using literally any excuse they could, so they could hold the “one more write-up and you’re fired” over their head.

“AI” is definitely going to become a new tool for employee suppression.

The short form ones go on insta and tiktok.

It’s important to distinguish between why a company offers a service, and what people use the service for. TikTok gets used for lots of content that doesn’t go viral, and that doesn’t try to chase the algorithm.

You heard them, you’re in charge of video hosting now.

There is no such thing as a form of media that is only applicable to a specific scale of use. Long form and short form media is useful to large and small groups.

For example, my partner coaches high school policy debate, which has long form video training content, short form content (30 seconds - 5 minutes) like clips from tournament rounds or practices, for recruitment, and very short form (1 - 30 second) clips that are mostly memes.

Their shorter form content is explicitly meant not to be viral, it’s purely for their school, and other kids in their debate league. Most of it’s not even parsable by non-debaters. It’s only useful to their small community, but that’s what they want.

I actually kind of love the idea of a per diem Unknown User Limit. Like the first 5000 unregistered users can view the site, but after that they get dropped at ingress. Also, limit user signups per day (this ain’t about growing user base, it’s about preventing virality)!

Sure, you could still need an ingress server that can handle a high load to avoid the accidental ddos if word-of-mouth gets out about it, but that’s a million times lower of a requirement than a server that can handle serving a web page or app to the same number of users.

you’re failing to see the biases inherent to the content you’re consuming

You are underestimating people, I think. People choose their echo chambers because they understand that their positions are being challenged elsewhere. It’s not an inability to see the bias in what they consume, it’s a dislike of the alternative.

Every Trumper I talk to knows very well that Trump is unpopular, that Christian Nationalism is unpopular, that abortion rights are popular, etc, but they don’t care, and they don’t want to constantly be (rightfully) told and shown how dumb they are, so they wall themselves off in their gardens. “I’m just tired of hearing how bad Trump is all the time.”