I'm not sure it's creditable that enough credence is being given to these anonymous claims in a private group to be impacting this person's life. Seems more akin to a slapp.
"So do you trust some shady foreign VPN provider more than your government approved ISP?" might return true from journalists in autocratic states that have a record of censorship, surveillance and imprisoning journalists.
Don't forget the human element: users still have actually do the verifying (e.g. checking public key fingerprints of recipients) that the source code enables!
If you go down that road, you can make this argument infinitely. Even if you verify your builds, you cannot know if the software you are using to check the build isn't compromised. Or if you check the software you use to check the build, you have to check the software doing that check and so on.
Nothing makes software automatically super-crazy-secure. Absolute security doesn't exist.
People who wish to mask their crimes have a greater incentive to use E2EE so will probably gravitate towards platforms that offer it. I would therefore suggest those not committing crimes are disproportionately affected by E2EE not being made the default where possible. Once one service in a particular category offers E2EE, the benefits of the other services in that category not offering it is significantly reduced.
A common convention with system administrators is to have the canonical name at www.* and redirect www-less requests to the former. If you argue that a browser implementation should fix uncommon configurations, I would argue that administrators should fix their configurations in the first place.
You don’t have this issue at all for domains that don’t have a www subdomain.
Furthermore it would be extremely confusing to have different content for www.example.com & example.com.
Yeah, I don't like the current trend to redirect www to root. You can easily doing simple dns-based load balancing by having multiple ip addresses on the www subdomain. You can't do that on root domain, you'll have to use a dedicated load balancer even if all you want is just simple load balancing among a small set of servers. It only benefit cloud vendors and hurt hobbyist/small website operators if this trend continues to the point that visitors expect all websites to be served from root insetad of www.
If we could ever be bothered to implement SRV records for http then load balancing and failover could be significantly more straightforward and robust, without worrying about root vs. www at all.
Multiple A records is fine on root domain, but root can't use CNAME, which is used by some people to implement their dns load balancing (I use cname so I forgot that you can still do it using A records). By using root domain instead of www, your options for load balancing is diminished.
Edit: another common use case is hosting your static website on S3 or github pages. Typically it's done by adding a cname entry to s3 or github.io (been a while so hopefully I remember it right). You can't do this on root, unless you're using another server as reverse proxy (e.g. cloudflare's cname flattening service). Again, it's benefits cloud vendors (cloudflare got more potential customers by offering this service for free) but ultimately hurt people that want to host their small websites.
One thing you might want to consider is having one domain for a website about collectednotes (collectednotes.com) and another for hosting user's blogs (collectednotes.blog for example) because it is currently not clear what urls are official and made by you and which are just blogs made by anyone.
There was a story here a couple of weeks ago or something with a post mortem from someone who got their websites taken offline and access to their mail suspended or taken offline because some automated system at a giant corporation decided so.
It stayed offline for hours because there was no competent humans available with authority to override the clearly (AFAIK) stupid decision made by the system.
Personally a key takeaway from that (except not depending on said company) was to make sure one has at least two domains, preferably with two registrars, and make sure user generated content is not available on the one you depend on for email etc.
Great tip - got a link for the story, by any chance? Or do you remember who the company was, so I can search for it myself?
EDIT: I couldn't find anything directly on point, but I did find this related horror story about a company whose ICANN email contact information no longer worked because the company's contact person had left the company. An ICANN email to the contact person bounced back. ICANN took the entire domain offline. The company's Web person had a lot of trouble getting through to a human at ICANN to straighten things out — and even then: "To make a long story short, my client was required to submit articles of incorporation, bank statements and other documents in order to get the domain working again." [0]
EDIT 2: Thanks to Chris Morgan, who provided a link to a GitBook horror story. [1]
I added both stories to my "Startup Law 101" page [2], with a hat tip to both Erik and Chris.
Is the extent of the 'unlimited' important? Lending a single book more than they own is an impossibility if they are respecting IP - no different to a physical library photocopying entire books so they can lend more.
Oh let me see, perhaps it has something to do with China being a one-party state with a ripe history of human rights atrocities and pervasive censorship.
Just look at SARS for an example of where trusting the official information from China made for a terrible idea.
The two US parties are almost completely identical in behaviour. They have both continued brutal imperialism. They have both demonised countries that opposed said imperialism and persecuted the few in the US (press or otherwise) that were also opposed.
There is also no democratic control of the people over the US press, it's privately owned by only a few. The press has an extremely long history of hiding and fabricating facts, particularly against anti-capitalists.
More importantly, there is no democratic control over production and distribution. It is almost all privately owned.
The US's history of brutality and manipulation is unmatched.
That may well be, but the predominant concern is larger droplets from a cough or sneeze. I don't recall seeing anything speaking of airborne transmission.
