criticism [was Re: much cesorship, now including the cp list]

[Stefan Claas]

To make one point clear, I mean with a static IPv6 address that this
option (globally) would *not* need to be mandatory! However, users
whishing to obtain a free of charge static IP address should be IMHO
possible in 2021, due to the large ammount available, or ask yourself
why only businesses im most countries get a static IPv6.

Regarding anonymity, there are plenty of OpenSource tools available,
which would give users the same anonymity they have with a dynamic
IPv4 address, because the users ISP is anyways capable to monitor
the users Internet connection, regardless if v4 or v6, IMHO.

Regards
Stefan

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:46 AM Karl <gmkarl at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >    ah yes. And don't forget to tatoo the unique per-subject, SORRY, per
> >> > 'citizen' address on the subject's, I MEAN 'citizen's' forehead.
> >>
> >> too negative, harmful
> >
> >
> >       Actually, you're completely wrong. My comment is perfectly valid and isn't
> > harmful at all. What is harmful is the idea of LINKING EVEN MORE IDENTIFIERS
> > TO PEOPLE. It's an idea that would make anonimity even weaker than it
> > currently is.
>
> sounds like you're really, really upset here ...?  I don't quite
> understand the argument yet, but it sounds like I said something very
> thoughtless.
>
> it seems what's important is that we need to help people be more
> anonymous, and not associate identifying attributes with them?
>
> >       There is no need for more addresses and you can run servers at home without
> > any New IPv6 Bullshit.
>
> this is true for the set of people who already have an ipv4 address, of course