I haven't delved into the philosophy of idealism, so I'm a seed in that. Just looked up the wikipedia article when you brought it up. Found it to be an umbrella term, so I couldn't really determine my stead on it.
Yes, unwellness lokening is going away from the material frame because unwellness lokening greatens our ability to think wholistically. It doesn't weaken, but greatens our ability to systematically respond to the rampage of might and machine*.
With this framing, we relight our attention away from the abstract, towards the value of life. This weakens mights ability to coerce us in that we move away from an unliving world towards a living world. Where we view life as worthy, instead of as exploitable. Where we do not simply see a forest as a source of income, but rather as something that lives and are worthy of care.
We don't need science to see that Gaja is sick, we already know this. We know that might and machine is the source of these unwellnesses. Simply withdrawing our support and establishing mightless and samholding societies are enough to ensure samlife with Gaja. We can do this through lokenings such as moving away from overproduction towards frugile societies. Let societies not be governed by leaders, but grown by guiders. No science is needed to understand this, only an agreement about what society should be grounded upon.
*Using machine as a way to refer to the systems controlled by might that undermines our free will.
Our words makes us think under the capitalist mindset.
For deem, we like to use problem solving to mitigate capitalisms disruptions. By doing this, we superficially look at the current conditions and answers similarily superficially. For deem, we say that plastic bottles pollutes our oceans and recirculation are the solution. That cars polluting are the problem and electric cars are the solution.
These are technically solutions, but they dont take an wholistic approach. They dont see the interplay of different actions. They dont necessarily try to completely answer an undesired condition. This is the unwellness of problem solving.
What we instead should do, is to start from the wholistic. View our planet as a body. To see ourselves as doctors rather than engineers. To say that we do unwellness lokening, rather than problem solving.
Because by doing this, we fundamentally change the framing. We will have a much easier time defining conditions wholistically, and thus makes it easier to find effective responses to them.
Plastics bottles are certainly an unwellness, but it is part of something bigger... The unwellness of plastic pollution where the lokening is stopping plastic production. An unwellness is cars, the lokening is stopping car production. An unwellness is advertisements, the lokening is people initiated sightsteering.
The unwellness lokening approach is in itself a way to move away from captialist realism and towards samlife.
Email is an open protocol and therefore we dont need this.
Openness doesn't mean flawless. Openness doesn't mean it is good. The protocol of BlueSky is open, but gives only the mighty the ability to take ownership.
I don't know why they think email is good enough, it must be something irrational.
...
Email is distributed.
It is certainly not distributed. Today it is a mix of oligopoly and decentralized. If it was distributed, it would be as easy to host an email service as it is to own a phone. Entirely possible, but not the reality of today.
Tuta wasn't able to succeed and therefore this is not going to succeed.
Just because somebody has failed before, doesn't mean it can't be done.
They are targeting the tinfoil hat people.
...
People don't care.
If you say this, then you are out of the discussion. Let adults speak instead.
A comment section full of strawmen.
If you are going to criticize this project, you need to criticize how they present their ideas. Perhaps you disagree how they portray email. Then you can say something like, "it is not an issue that a few corporation host most of the emails of the world." You can say "A significant amount of funding comes from xxx and this compromizes their integrity." You could say "Open email sais that their protocol is private, but why do they not implement superduper encryption".
With Mail/HTTPS, self-hosting email is as simple as running a website.
That sounds amazing!
I'm all for software that greatens our ability to selfhost. I've heard it's very hard to host email. If open email delivers on this, it might just have what it takes to survive.
I personally associate freedom with white because its like a piece of unpainted paper. I associate peace with green because it is the color of plants which symbolizes nature.
If I understand security, it is a contrast to the active defence in that it is passive defence. If so, you could possibly play around with how these symbolically relate to each other. For deem looking at them as a two sided unity.
You are a dreamer, and this is exactly what we need. Two hands up for that.
But before designing a flag, we first need to agree on the symbolism.
There are two types of symbols. Anti symbols and pro symbols.
Anti symbols are easier to make, because they comes from reaction. Its easy to see whats wrong. "anarchism is order" and "stop war" stickers are anti symbols.
But pro symbols are harder because they require us to understand what we are fighting for. The rainbow flag and the aboriginal flag are pro flags, because they show what they are fighting for. The rainbow flag fights for diversity, while the aboriginal flag establishes a connection between people, land and the sun.
In short, I believe that a pro symbol would be better for gleedening people into the struggle.
With this in mind, I think we should fundamenrally understand why privacy matters, and make symbols out of that.
I haven't delved into the philosophy of idealism, so I'm a seed in that. Just looked up the wikipedia article when you brought it up. Found it to be an umbrella term, so I couldn't really determine my stead on it.