Here’s an announcement of the Matrix 2.0 spec, which includes a switch to the new OIDC system:

https://matrix.org/blog/2024/10/29/matrix-2.0-is-here/

That links to this Matrix spec proposal:

https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/blob/hughns/delegated-oidc-architecture/proposals/3861-delegated-oidc-architecture.md

IMO the tl;dr is that they’re switching to a widespread standard that has a lot of development around it and security auditing. It will take a lot less of their time to just use that vs maintaining their own stack. OIDC will let you use google/github-style “Login with…” approaches, but you can use that with any other service that supports OIDC, not just a few blessed services.

There’s also this site with a “Why?” section: https://areweoidcyet.com/#why

Seems like a lot of people want that too, so hopefully they’ll add it soon

I bought everyone in my family a drink to get them to use Signal. Worked great and we’re still on it.

Don’t bother trying to sell people on privacy etc, for the most part. Show them Giphy integration, stickers, Stories, etc and show them that it’s fun. Signal has done great work there, in making it “noob-friendly”

I’m using a common definition of imperialism. If you wish to redefine it so that it can’t be applied to your favorite imperialists, you need to justify that redefinition. To me, you haven’t. Here’s Wikipedia’s definition. Whether or not you agree with it isn’t really the point, it’s a common definition and if you want to use it in a different meaning, you should make that clear upfront and/or justify the new usage:

Imperialism is maintaining or extending power over foreign nations, particularly through expansionism, employing both hard power (military and economic power) and soft power (diplomatic power and cultural imperialism). Imperialism focuses on establishing or maintaining hegemony and a more or less formal empire.

I guess you could call that intentional? Intentionally doing the thing that makes sense, i.e. using the common definition, which is kind of a weird use of the word. At any rate, I’m having a conversation with you because you’ve been giving thoughtful replies, as much as we disagree with each other. This is the sort of discussion that is actually worth having. As hard as it is to talk about these things over text, I think this has actually been productive. I wouldn’t have known that you’re using a different definition of imperialism otherwise, for example. That is one of the hardest things when trying to communicate, is using the same words but talking past each other.

The article btw doesn’t just reference western think tanks. India for example, has accused China of the same behavior. Many of their neighbors have accused them of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabbage_tactics as well. I also edited the link above to point at the main article, instead of a section that links to it.

I guess as long as we can agree that the PRC is acting in its own interests. I just have less faith in humanity than you do, I guess.

They’re still imperialist, they just don’t have the power to effect it as well as they have historically:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_salami_slicing_strategy

They lost out to bigger imperialists in the 19th century. Now, they’re recovering and behaving exactly as you’d expect if they’re still imperialist, just with less power (but growing).

EDIT: Fixed link above to be direct

I am analyzing why things happen, you just don’t like it. The analysis is rooted in looking at the entirety of their history. Materially, they have been just as imperialist as anyone else. My point is that looking at their imperialist history and saying things will be different this time based on vibes is foolish.

Materially, they’re xenophobic, like the rest of humanity. Claiming that they’re uniquely not xenophobic is racist in its own way.

They’ve decided before. So has Japan. But you’re missing the point here. It’s not about likelihood of it happening, it’s about what’s possible today vs possible in a changed world.

I’ll try stating it another way. If the US got busy with a civil war for the next few years and I was in a leadership position of say Korea or Japan, I would be pushing for a nuclear program posthaste, because that’s the only real deterrent.

The world we live in now is not one where it’s advantageous to China to be overtly aggressive. We can theorize all day, but looking at Chinese history, they’re just like every other empire in history, and have been quite aggressive in the past. Even the idea of “China” is born out of bloody wars of conquest. I don’t see any reason that they’d be different if given the opportunity.

I agree on what it is and isn’t, but that’s the counterpoint to your statement that communism and imperialism don’t mix. My assertion is that imperialism is a part of human nature, and so either you acknowledge that communism and imperialism do mix, or that communism isn’t realistic for humanity.

I think there’s ~0% chance you’re interested in understanding […]

It’s hard to convey over text on the internet, but I am actually interested in better understanding the world. As much as I think places like Hexbear are silly, it’s useful to encounter worldviews so alien. I really hate low-effort “dunking” even if it’s something I agree with, because you can’t learn anything from that and it loses all nuance.

I’m not saying “therefore they must be the maximum amount of violent at all opportunities”. Can you point to any period in history in which empires were just chill and sung kumbaya all day long, though?

We have substantial real world evidence that China does not prefer to take that approach.

We have zero evidence that China would not take that approach in a world without Pax Americana (as much as I think the term is silly, it’s a convenient shorthand). We do have a lot of evidence that China is a normal country like everywhere else and pushes their interests where possible:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_salami_slicing_strategy

Those savages

If that’s what you jump to, you might want to introspect on that. They’re not savages for being xenophobic, that just makes them human like the rest of us.

If it were in China’s “nature”

That paragraph is a commentary on power relations and geography. It’s not in “China’s nature”, but if they decided to invade in a world that looked like ours today but without the US, there would realistically be nobody to stop them. Perhaps North Korean nukes would be enough of a deterrent actually, but shy of that there would be no realistic opposing force.

The threat of nukes is real. I wouldn’t expect any major wars between nuclear states right away, but there would be a lot of consolidation of smaller countries without nukes into larger countries with nukes. In this scenario if you’re Japan, you will have the option of getting nukes ASAP or deciding if you want to learn Russian or Chinese.

I think it’s naive to think that military conflicts purely arise out of a latent cultural xenophobia

I’m not claiming that only xenophobia leads to military conflicts. It is often used to whip up support for conflicts that people in power want, though.

If you can get your objective without draining massive portions of your economy, then there’s really no reason to, and I don’t think china would have many problems taking really any soft power objective they set their eyes on

Soft power is preferable, yeah. The real measure is when someone has something you want and they say “no”.

our economic metrics are so fucked as to be almost certainly useless.

Definitely agree that they’re all fucked up. It remains to be seen how much it helps vs hurts though. Like the saying “The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent”, sometimes the fact that the metrics are all made up can be useful. I say that as someone that doesn’t like how little they resemble the real world.

It is not human nature in the sense that humans will always do it when the opportunity presents itself.

What would be the best historical example that you can think of? To be specific, what is a historical example of when a country would have benefited from expanding an empire, had the resources and ability to do so, and chose not to for an extended period of time?

That would be a strange form of communism.

Human greed is a base desire that has been a constant throughout our entire history. At some point, you’re arguing for a fantasy. Either Communism is a realistic political system that can be implemented with humans as we are, including all of our base animal impulses, or it’s a fantasy that requires humans to achieve a higher level of consciousness first or something.

Saying that China doesn’t have a MIC is a non-sequitur. The incentive is power. If acquiring or maintaining power in China requires military expansion, it will happen.

First off, thanks for the substantive response. I appreciate these sorts of discussions over people just trying to dunk on each other like it’s twitter.

I don’t think China would drop bombs as soon as possible. I think they’ll start dropping bombs as soon as that is the best or easiest way of achieving some goal.

China is super xenophobic, like many Asian countries. They won’t even try to hide it behind a facade like the West does.

They don’t bother using bombs right now, because it would give the US an excuse to get involved, and the US currently outspends the next 11 countries combined. That would be a total shitshow for them no matter what happened. Nobody bothers trying to outspend the US, because you’d wreck your economy and get nothing. If the US went poof though, you’d get a game theoretic situation where everybody invests in the military because everyone else is investing in their military and you don’t want to be left out. If China then decided that they want to finish the job on making the Korean peninsula Chinese, who would realistically stop them?

The belt and road initiative is a great extension of soft power, but that says nothing about how they’d use hard power if given the opportunity.

I have depicted you in mixed case text. Your argument is over :sneer:

Do better.

Imperialism is human nature, yes. Imperialism is not otherwise known as monopoly capitalism, which is where your whole chain of thought breaks down. Are you really trying to argue that Communists can’t be imperialist?

Never, because it’s not. This is the future:

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cultures/fully-automated-luxury-gay-space-communism

Let’s get there as quickly as possible

Right now, it would be strategically unwise. They would get a lot of international blowback, sanctions, etc. As a country, it’s currently better to achieve your goals with diplomacy and hostile actions that have plausible deniability. That can easily change, though. If it does, prepare to live in interesting times.

To be blunt, have you read a history book? People have been killing the outgroup in brutal struggles for power since time began. Are you aware of the phrase “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”? It comes from the Siege of Melos in 416 B.C.

I don’t like it, but that’s the way the world works, and has worked forever. Criticizing people in power for their actions is good. Saying “if only this other country was in power, things would be different” is foolish.

To be clear, I’m not in favor of dropping bombs on people. My argument is that saying “China isn’t dropping any bombs” is silly. They would if they could and it would achieve a goal.

Human nature doesn’t change just because you go over to the other side of the globe. History shows us that the wars over there haven’t been any less bloody. Why are you proposing that human nature is fundamentally different now?