Technology

60012 readers

2953 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

555

[Cory Doctorow] With An Audacious Plan To Halt The Internet’s Enshittification And Throw It Into Reverse (hackaday.com)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

107 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Its the whole point of this point in this thread.

Weird that the article never even mentions it’s own subject… Or that its about a problem you claim doesn’t exist…

I don't know how to help you if you're not able to see the parent post which is quote in the article. It has this important line which we're discussing in this thread.

"Through government procurement laws, governments could require any company providing a product or service to the government to not interfere with interoperability."

I'm not going to copy/paste the entire line of posts where the conversation evolves. You're welcome to read those to catch up to the conversation.

No amount of donor money allows a company to bypass Fedramp compliance for this work.

Oh, honey…

Cool, then it should be easy for you to cite a company that got Fedramp work without being Fedramp certified. Should I wait for you to post your evidence or will you be a bit?

[+] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Once again, no one is talking about " fedramp" but the entire article goes into detail about the subject of government requirements for contractors that don’t exist. Maybe give it a look.

I'm talking about Fedramp as an example of a government compliance regime that "through government procurement laws, governments" DOES "require any company providing a product or service to the government to not interfere with interoperability.”

I'm confused how you're spending so much effort in a conversation and you're not able to connect basic concepts.

Article premise: "Wouldn't it be great if X exists?"

Me: "X does exist for a specific area, its called Fedramp."

Where is the difficulty you are encountering in understanding conversational flow?

[+] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What you’re talking about, and what myself and the author are talking about, are clearly not the same thing.

Unless you're Doctorow, I don't think you can speak for the author, but you can certainly for yourself.

I looked at your post history and I don't see anything I'd consider trolling, but your responses her are screaming that in this thread of conversation. I'm just going to chalk this up to us SERIOUSLY not communicating with one another for some unknown reason.

There's no point in us conversing further on this. I'm making clear my point in multiple ways. You're still not getting it so lets just end this here.

I hope your other conversation with others are more communicative that this one. Have a great day!