[mirimir]

No, but you can drive unlicensed vehicles -- even vehicles that could never be licensed -- on private land.

[golem14]

Sure, but the equivalent would be to host your content on a Raspberry Pi that is not connected to the internet. What would be the point ?

[mirimir]

True. But you could host on a Pi via Tor, as an onion site.

[golem14]

I don't understand the premise. Why would one expect to be able to interact with the world without any consequences ? That makes little sense, philosophically, at least to me.

Even hosting via Tor can have consequences, if the government has enough incentive.

However, practically speaking, I think the OP would probably be fine posting on AWS, as others have remarked.

[mirimir]

> Why would one expect to be able to interact with the world without any consequences ?

Because you're not free if you can't do that.

> Even hosting via Tor can have consequences, if the government has enough incentive.

Then you can chain Tor with other anonymity networks. Such as nested VPN chains, Orchid, or LokiNet.

Based on what I've seen, people have generally been pwned because they screwed up, and not through fundamental compromises.

[strbean]

Unless you are drunk in California. Then it is illegal to drive even on your own property.

[mirimir]

Huh. So you can't drive a four wheeler on your farm while drunk? That seems pretty harsh :(

[strbean]

Yep! Of course, your chances of getting caught are almost nil.

[pmiller2]

But, I can't do whatever I want with it, and that's the point. "Full ownership" does not mean you can just do whatever without consequences.

[mirimir]

Sure, "full ownership" means owning the entire stack.

And it's a limited concept, in any case. I mean, you'd have no problem hosting anything as a Tor onion site, or on Freenet. You don't "own" either platform, but they're designed to guarantee decent anonymity, and takedown resistence. However, it's all too easy to screw up and lose your site, and perhaps your freedom. So you gotta know what you're doing, and practice good OPSEC.

[pmiller2]

First you say "full ownership" means "owning the entire stack," but then you go on and talk about using things you don't own, such as Tor, or Freenet. You talk about "screw[ing] up, and los[ing] your site or your freedom," as if you might have to hide what you're doing. None of that sounds like "full ownership" to me.

[mirimir]

I mean that "full ownership" implies "owning the entire stack". Which in any useful context is arguably impossible. So "full ownership" just isn't a useful way to think about this.

I mentioned Freenet and Tor because they're designed to provide privacy and protect against censorship, even though users don't own the full stack.

[pmiller2]

Then, "full ownership" is a meaningless concept, not worth the electrons and brain cycles you and I just wasted on it.

[mirimir]

That's a good way to put it :)

Unfortunately, I didn't think of that :(