Welcome

Cyberia.BZ is a small, independent site focused on commentary, links, and reactions to what’s happening online.

It exists because too much of the modern web is noisy, manipulative, tracked to hell, or written to please algorithms instead of people. This site does none of that.

Posts here range from short reactions to longer commentary, usually centered on technology, internet culture, digital rights, media, and whatever else crosses the feed that feels worth documenting or questioning. Some posts are serious. Some are dry. Some are sarcastic. All of them are intentional.

There are no third-party ad networks, no behavioral targeting, and no data harvesting. I do run a basic analytics/security layer to spot scrapers, abuse, and attacks.

Embeds (YouTube, Bandcamp, etc.) are external services. They have their own rules. I don’t run them and I don’t vouch for what they do.

I also don’t control any Mastodon instances. If an instance hosts a flame war under a link to my post, that’s their problem. I can only control what appears on this site, and what I personally respond to.

Cyberia.BZ uses UTC timestamps because the readers span multiple time zones and because local time drama is pointless.

This site is not a brand, a startup, or a content funnel. It’s closer to a public notebook with opinions. It’s kept readable, archivable, and mostly resistant to bullshit.

Read what you want. Ignore what you don’t. Subscribe only if it’s useful to you.

Positions

Privacy is the baseline. Without privacy you don’t get “free people,” you get compliant husks that behave like they’re being watched (because they are). Strong encryption should be normal, with no backdoors. Security tools and code should be publicly auditable. Mass surveillance doesn’t become acceptable because someone stapled a warrant to it.

Speech is broadly free. The line is when speech turns into action or targeting: credible threats, doxxing, coordinated harassment, or telling others to act (“I didn’t say go after them” doesn’t count). “Hate speech” as a legal category mostly just turns opinions into crimes and pushes rot underground. If you want to defuse radicalization, you don’t do it by banning the evidence.

Government force is legitimate for a narrow set of reasons: stopping fraud, stopping extreme violence, and basic national defense. The state is the bigger long-term threat because it doesn’t need to compete, doesn’t go bankrupt, and rarely gives powers back once it takes them.

Economically, this is not an ideological purity test. Healthcare should be free at point of use. It also shouldn’t be designed to stagnate. Competition and incentives have a place when they prevent institutional rot. There should also be a universal baseline, because automation isn’t going to ask permission before it eats jobs. Markets are useful tools. Monopolies that block competition are not and should be broken up when they choke the system. Unions are fine, but should be regulated so they can’t be used as cover for outside abuse.

Justice should prioritize rehabilitation for non-violent crime. For sexual crimes, crimes against children, and deliberate mass endangerment, the tolerance level is near zero and the consequences should be severe.

On culture and religion: belief is a personal choice. But any belief system that normalizes subjugation of women, hostility to LGBT people, child marriage, or barbaric punishments doesn’t “fit” neatly into modern rights-based society just because it’s old or labeled “faith.” Pluralism is good. Rights-degradation isn’t.

Integration is values-first: don’t abuse your family, don’t import supremacist or rights-stripping ideologies, and don’t treat modern civil rights as optional. Support integration by default; monitor real warning signs; escalate only when there are credible threats or actual harm. The same standard applies to citizens too. This isn’t a “rules for newcomers only” thing.

Micronations: aren’t “real countries” in the UN sense, and I’m not pretending otherwise. I just think they’re often more legible than legacy states, because their whole pitch is explicit: here’s what we’re trying to build, here’s the charter, here’s the rules, here’s the exit. Sealand and Liberland are the two examples I have more respect for than I probably should.

Yes, they’re unrecognized. That’s not the point.

I’m not asking anyone to worship micronations, and I’m not claiming recognition is merit-based (it usually isn’t). I’m saying: if a would-be country is honestly trying to meet the basic requirements of statehood (stable governance, rule enforcement, external relations, and rights protections) without exporting misery, that project deserves more serious consideration than yet another “official” state that survives mainly on legacy, coercion, and the fact that nobody has redrawn the map again yet. (International law folks tend to point to the Montevideo criteria when talking about what “being a state” even means.)

Paperwork section

Yes, I have religious paperwork. No, it does not grant me special powers.

• Dudeism (2014-04-04). Three weddings officiated.
• Universal Life Church (2022).
• Church of the SubGenius (2026-01-01).

I’m mentioning this only because people keep asking what kind of “minister” I mean.

Open source and control

I’m pro open-source because I like knowing what my tools are doing and being able to leave when they stop behaving. Closed systems optimize for lock-in. Open systems optimize for survivability.

Slackware is my main OS by choice. It’s predictable, minimally abstracted, and doesn’t assume I want a wizard holding my hand. For paid or client work that requires enterprise compatibility, I’ll use Red Hat. That’s about meeting requirements, not loyalty.

On mobile, I use a custom Android fork specifically to avoid Google account lock-in and default telemetry. It’s not about purity. It’s about reducing unnecessary dependence.

Last Updated: 2026/01/01