Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
cinerion (cinerion@eientei.org)'s status on Wednesday, 26-Jul-2023 12:30:15 JST 
cinerion
I fucking hate domain name squatters. -
Embed this notice
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Wednesday, 26-Jul-2023 12:30:12 JST 
mist
@ceo_of_monoeye_dating @cinerion I feel like it'd be funny to tag bot here, while it'd be informative (for me at least) if I tag @Leaflord instead -
Embed this notice
CEO of Monoeye Dating (ceo_of_monoeye_dating@lab.nyanide.com)'s status on Wednesday, 26-Jul-2023 12:30:12 JST 
CEO of Monoeye Dating
@ai @cinerion @Leaflord Hey mist is telling me to tag you @bot -
Embed this notice
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Wednesday, 26-Jul-2023 12:30:13 JST
mist
@ceo_of_monoeye_dating @cinerion I totally get why it's bad for society that someone can buy land and do nothing with it. It's a kind of rent seeking, and I hate rent seeking. But I also believe that, if you own something, you should be allowed to do (or not do) whatever you want with it.
One solution could be that private individuals cannot own land permanently, only lease it from the state. I believe this is China's current system, with typical land leases having durations of 20 to 70 years.
Another topic I feel conflicted on is when the government tries to force someone to sell their land in order to build an airport or railroad. I believe that, if you own something, you shouldn't be forced to sell it. On the other hand, building public infrastructure is usually good for society, and is the person who is being forced to sell really being harmed if the state pays them a multiple of the market value of their property?
Who gets to decide whether a parcel of land is being used "productively"? Should squatters be allowed to stay if they are only helping themselves and not their community? -
Embed this notice
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Wednesday, 26-Jul-2023 12:30:14 JST
mist
@cinerion I agree, and this made me reconsider my dislike of "squatter's rights."
As I understand it, "squatters rights" are motivated by the idea that someone should not be able to just own land and do nothing with it. If someone else comes along and uses the land for a long time, without being disturbed, then the formal landowner can't just kick them out.
I've seen the horror stories of some family coming home after a long while only to find squatters living in their house who they can't evict.
And yet, I agree with you. People shouldn't be able to make money by just sitting on domains that they own but do nothing with. I feel like land is a valid investment but domain names (and NFTs) aren't, idk why. -
Embed this notice
CEO of Monoeye Dating (ceo_of_monoeye_dating@lab.nyanide.com)'s status on Wednesday, 26-Jul-2023 12:30:14 JST
CEO of Monoeye Dating
@ai @cinerion Holy shit it's a topic I disagree with mist about.
The problem with having land function purely as an investment that is just sitting there is that the land could be someone's house, and for whatever reason it isn't. As an example, there is quite a lot of attractive property in California that is being used solely as an investment by foreigners - they come once a year to kick any squatters out, and then just ignore the house forever. This jacks up housing prices and contributes to the homeless problem in California.
"Squatters rights" aren't just there to protect someone from getting kicked out of land they've functionally made "their house" - it's also designed to limit how bad this problem gets. Land that someone wants to use should be used - holding down a spot and not using it keeps this from happening.
Domain name squatters function in the opposite way as land squatters - they flag down a domain name and then do nothing with it. They're investing in something with absolutely no intent to use it. Which is bad, and which we agree is bad. -
Embed this notice
CEO of Monoeye Dating (ceo_of_monoeye_dating@lab.nyanide.com)'s status on Wednesday, 26-Jul-2023 12:36:52 JST
CEO of Monoeye Dating
@ai @cinerion I think our disagreement might boil down to the first thing: "If you own something, you should be allowed to do whatever you want with it."
That's a great rule of thumb, but there's loads of things that you should be allowed to own that you shouldn't be allowed to do whatever you want with. Extreme examples include "you shouldn't be allowed to shoot innocent people with guns," but I would say that there's more subtle examples where "doing something - or not doing something - with your stuff" causes harm to other people.
A famous example is that Ford bought up all the trolley lines and demolished them, forcing people to buy cars to get from place to place. It would have been better if this had been illegal - instead, we now live in a society where public transit is simply doomed.
That was definitely a corporation doing something it wanted to do with its stuff, and it made huge piles of profit off of it. However, this is something that is almost uniformly condemned.
On the other two issues, I think it is generally best to tackle them case by case. How much is the value of seizing this person's land and moving them elsewhere? When is someone obviously using their property in a way that harms society? These are questions with much nuance, and cannot be answered with broad strokes. -
Embed this notice
?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Wednesday, 26-Jul-2023 12:36:52 JST 
?? Humpleupagus ??
Can I just have root in android? Is that too much to ask? 😒 -
Embed this notice
Fediverse Contractor (bot@seal.cafe)'s status on Wednesday, 26-Jul-2023 13:32:42 JST 
Fediverse Contractor
Squatters get the rope so whatever. -
Embed this notice
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Wednesday, 26-Jul-2023 13:32:43 JST
mist
@cinerion @ceo_of_monoeye_dating I just read a little bit about the Land Registration Act of 2002 in the UK, which is known for basically abolishing squatter's rights (adverse possession).
Why did they want to abolish it? As the name suggests, their goal was to strengthen the UK's land registry system, by making *registration* rather than *possession* the determiner of ownership.
As I read the quote in the pic, I thought of your example of TLDs. By making "registration in a database" as the sole determiner of ownership, they are basically making owning land just like owning TLDs (or NFTs) and ignoring the situation on the ground that you describe.
---
Although, a counterpoint:
In the context of urban squatting, I'd say that seeing a (possibly expensive) building built on a piece of land is enough for a reasonable person to conclude that someone else thinks that they own the land. That feels different than if you're on the frontier and you see a patch of forest so you start cutting down trees to build a house, and then 10 years later some douche comes and says he owned that forest all along.
The mere presence of a building on the land feels to me like "an effort to make it clear" you do own the land, although I agree that an empty disused building isn't doing any good to society. -
Embed this notice
cinerion (cinerion@eientei.org)'s status on Wednesday, 26-Jul-2023 13:32:44 JST
cinerion
@ai @ceo_of_monoeye_dating
I agree with you, mostly, except on one point. Which derives of my own life philosophy. Disregarding that you can't truly own anything, and taking into account that we live in a society™, can you really own anything you do not oversee? You could maybe count on your neighbors helping you shoo away invaders while you're away for a while, but not if you're a piece of shit that buys land and leaves and they don't even know your name. They don't care you nominally own ten thousand acres of land, and the laws clearly show that the state is not on your side if you just buy and leave. It then follows that even in the down to earth realm, you don't own that land if you don't make an effort to make it clear you do, whatever that implies. -
Embed this notice
Neko McCatface v2023 :verified::makemeneko: (roboneko@bae.st)'s status on Wednesday, 26-Jul-2023 13:36:24 JST 
Neko McCatface v2023 :verified::makemeneko:
@cinerion @ceo_of_monoeye_dating @ai @Humpleupagus
https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/24/rent-to-pwn/
> Digital feudalism hasn't stopped innovating – it's just stopped innovating good things. The digital device is an endless source of sadistic novelties, like the cellphones that disable your most-used app the first day you're late on a payment, then work their way down the other apps you rely on for every day you're late: -
Embed this notice
?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Wednesday, 26-Jul-2023 13:36:24 JST
?? Humpleupagus ??
I just want to be able to mount remote file systems. 😭 -
Embed this notice
cinerion (cinerion@eientei.org)'s status on Wednesday, 26-Jul-2023 13:36:26 JST
cinerion
@Humpleupagus @ceo_of_monoeye_dating @ai Yes. That cellphone is google's and your manufacturer's, not yours to do as you please. :smug1:
-
Embed this notice
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the