.io is a ccTLD though and is subject to the whims of the British Indian Ocean Territory. They can, for any reason, remove domains. See what recently happened with Mali and .ml.

Congratulations citizen! You have been awarded with a 600 FICO score for promulgating sinophobic nonsense. If you also prove that China is the Big Evil, you can get an additional 250 FICO score.

--

I don't think you see the irony in using the dead trope of "Social Credits" when an actual credit score exists in FICO and can be used to deny you housing, loans (and therefore access to education), jobs, and more. And if you think it's just financial transactions, try looking at what companies like LexisNexis have on you that it coalesces into things like "RiskView", or how much of a profile skip tracing agencies have on everyone. Then you have the profiles built on you by several government domestic (and foreign) surveillance agencies. And you have the profiles built on you by several big tech companies. Just because there's not a single, unified, government-sponsored surveillance and consumer rating agency doesn't mean the tangible effects of such disparate systems aren't identical to what you claim happens in China (i.e., denial of services and access). It doesn't matter if it's 50 different entities controlling parts of the system if the end result is identical.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

I hate this saying. It's not explicit, and logical consequence isn't bidirectional, but it implies that those who do remember the past somehow won't repeat it. Which is blatantly false. Many people, even those who intimately know history, want to repeat it. Either because they think material conditions are just different enough to lead to a different result this time, or that the precise way the actions in the past was carried out was subpar and with tiny tweaks it would lead to a different result, etc. I do generally agree with the explicit statement[^1], but I strongly disagree with the implicit statement.

[^1]: And even on the explicit statement I still have reservations. Sometimes material conditions are different enough, or the precise manner in which actions are carried out are different enough that those who know nothing about the past aren't condemned to repeat it: what those who know nothing about the past do is only superficially similar to the past, and can have radically different outcomes.

Call that tin foil hat syndrome or whatever.

Racism. It's racism and xenophobia.

Search engines like DDG should really begin maintaining their own index, and they should exclude sites that use the tech from the index.

If this gets implemented, it would ruin the ability for competitor search engines (such as DDG) to exist. If Google convinces site operators to require attestation, then suddenly automated crawlers and indexers will not function. Google could say to site operators that if they wish to run ads via Google's ad network they must require attestation; then, any third-party search indexer or crawler would be blocked from those sites. Google's ad network is used on about 98.8% of all sites which have advertising, and about 49.5% of all websites.

Isn’t someone just going to fork Chromium, take out this stuff,

Yes, upstream Chromium forks will likely try to remove this functionality, but

put in something that spoofs the DRM to the sites so that adblocking still works?

This is the part that is not possible. The browser is not doing the attestation; it's a third party who serves as Attestor. All the browser does is makes the request to the attestor, and passes the attestor's results to the server you're talking to. There is no way a change in the browser could thwart this if the server you're talking to expects attestation.

You can't simultaneously call Russia an authoritarian dictatorship and say that its people have the power to change the country's trajectory.

Because the only way to force change in a country, is to push it’s people to make that change.

The correct way to say this is: "the only way to force change in a country, is to push the people who can make change to make that change".

People are sanctioned, people are unhappy, people protest their government that allowed it to happen. It’s how you put pressure on the leadership of a country.

This doesn't follow. First of all, no change happens internally in the USA despite its own citizens complaining of material conditions; so to say that people being unhappy and protesting necessarily leads to change is false. Second, every other sentence people say about Russia is calling it "authoritarian", "dictatorship", etc: you can't simultaneously pretend its an authoritarian dictatorship and also that the people protesting have any say in its trajectory.

You can’t force Russia’s hand in this, but you can make the situation for their people uncomfortable.

Which is just wrong. You're making the everyday civilian uncomfortable. You aren't doing anything against those who actually make decisions. Instead you're punishing someone for their nationality, or where they were born or choose to live. It's punishment for something they didn't do and it's not constructive.

The alternative would be to say “Russia pls open the grain corridor again” and I think you can imagine their response.

Sure, I understand that you're saying Russia isn't going to just cooperate with requests. But it's also not going to be any more likely to cooperate because you've made the lives of their citizens, or people of Russian ethnicity living on foreign soil, any harder.

In the end this just punishes innocent people and does nothing to achieve the stated goal.

Not surprising unfortunately. There's no accountability or transparency; they can deny any application they want for any reason, and don't have to tell you why. As long as they don't come out and say it's due to being a member of a protected class (which they can act on indirectly, just can't say it out loud), they can get away with any reasoning.

I think the fact that there is a variety of opinions being posted, compared to the censorship I witnessed on Reddit, is the more mature situation. If anyone is being childish, it's those who feel the need to censor opposing ideologies. Feeling free to post and discuss differing views has a lot of value. I am assuming by your use of "commie" that you'd rather dismiss an entire ideology and group of supporters outright rather than on any real grounds.

Capitalism sure is efficient at exploiting externalities. SpaceX gets to ignore the difficulty and cost of stopping radiation pollution. The cost gets externalised to research institutions, academic researchers, government agencies (and so indirectly the taxpayer), and other corporations. Whereas it might cost $X for SpaceX to not cause the problem in the first place, it might cost $10X or $50X or more when everyone else has to duplicate cost and effort to overcome SpaceX's pollution.

My statement above was not meant to come across as xenophobic, but wary considering, historically, how involved China’s government is with local tech companies and entities that would contribute to a project like this.

This right here is where the problem is though. Simply being associated with the Chinese governement is not sufficient to assume malfeasance. Just as any of the large USA tech giants that take various forms of government funding aren't automatically assumed to be malicious simply by being associated with a "malicious" government. Hell, the Linux Foundation (Linus' employer) is almost entirely funded by really creepy USA-based tech companies that themselves receive government money for various projects or products. I don't assume baselessly that Linus would make the distribution insecure simply because he's funded by people who might want that.

Obviously, more data needs to be evaluated, but I think it’s fair to be cautious.

It is only fair to be exactly as cautious as you would be to run any other random Linux distribution: say, some random person's fork of Debian. Again, unless you have actual reason to treat it differently, doing so baselessly is rather lame and doesn't serve anyone. Of course it's fair to be catious of something as critical as an operating system; but viewing it through a biased lens doesn't make you more secure.

SIGs (special interest groups)

I'm not sure the precise definition for what counts as an SIG here, but it could mean something analagous to the Linux Foundation. It isn't necessarily suspicious. I think, from context, it's used in contrast to "enterprises"; that is, I take it to include any volunteer or not-for-profit contributions.