any nation’s major search engine is going to be turning up propaganda.
imo it’s better to include it & state where it came from so people can discern.
personally i don’t believe the entire population of any country are all bad people and increasingly siloing global citizens from eachother is only going to increase the kinds of toxic nationalism which dangerous regimes use as fuel
i think i can answer this
personally, when i first encountered graphene’s radical statements about the terrible security landscape we’re all subjected to, i reacted quite negatively & assumed they were crazy.
then i actually check the technical details of their claims, and fuck me it turns out to be SCARILY correct.
most people don’t actually bother with the second part. and you end up with a classic “shoot the messenger” scenario, where the bearer of bad news is equated with the bad news itself & punished by the mob (because they feel it’s easier than actually facing the uncomfortable reality of the bad news).
that scenario can only play out for so long before the messenger gets sick of being shot every day & reacts badly to the crowd. then the crowd points at their poor reaction & uses it as further “evidence” against their character.
well said!
imo it’s not a coincidence the public are being steered away from supporting graphene. it’s one thing to see the general public do this (they will do whatever their told), but seeing countless people who supposedly should know better its quite disturbing.
admittedly i’m not up to date on all the drama, but i thought that graphene saw themselves as victims of alt attacks?
some of it is kind of inevitable when you see how far ahead from everyone else they are technically and when people shitting on their work just aren’t at their (technical) level it seems to be very draining. and eventually lead to dramas.
for alot of people their relationship with windows is like that of an abusive partner. which is why you see alot of the same excuses pop up
I don’t think they’re disputing any of that if it’s hosted locally (including safely remote accessed by you). i think they’re talking about it being fed to the cloud & commoditised, which is a valid concern imo.
without further explanations of OP’s intent i’m inclined to think this is perhaps the best approach
exactly
default: on
user: explicitly turns off
random unrequested “update”: defaults back on
Now wait 1 year
I fucking hate this timeline.
my first thought as well…how did we get to the point that this is a valid topic?
(not a comment about you OP, just the state of the world)
it’s funny, i visited there once with a friend, we also discussed fairies in that area. i wonder what is the cause of such a seeming coincidence.
can you pls explain what you mean in more depth?
your original post is sufficiently vague that tbh i don’t blame people for assuming you were just bootlicking? [which probably says more about the state of the world than you as an individual, but honestly it’s not clear what you’re trying to say?]
we all know a random citizen/local business presenting an identical calibre of evidence of repeated crimes would be extremely unlikely to routinely receive this degree of resource allocation.
so if it’s an idealised aspirational universal “order” you’re talking about then obviously noone’s buying it - and i don’t think you are either. so what do you mean?
no, that illustration apparently came 12 years later
anyway as an 1800s fairy tale for children, imo i think it’s fine to view it through the lens of whichever culture you want. the trouble imo begins when trying to ascribe something to the story which it certainly did not contain - even that is probably basically harmless if you’re just confused or something, but it certainly becomes a problem when it’s used to justify unfairly shitting on someone else for a slightly different yet completely harmless alternative depiction.
it’s even worse than that cos the original text never said ariel’s human version race, they just assumed it lol.
and before anyone says yes but its written by a dane, my response is yes but it’s a fairy tale, anything is possible. why assume and then get angry based on your assumption?
well yeah most of its operating software was derived from opensource projects, but capitalists exploited those opensource project without giving much if anything back, so…
tar pits target the scrapers.
were you talking also about poisoning the training data?
two distinct (but imo highly worthwhile) things
tar pits are a bit like turning the tap off (or to a useless trickle). fortunately it’s well understood how to do it efficiently and it’s difficult to counter.
poisoning is a whole other thing. i’d imagine if nothing comes out of the tap the poison is unlikely to prove effective. there could perhaps be some clever ways to combine poisoning with tarpits in series, but in general they’d be deployed separately or at least in parallel.
bear in mind to meaningfully deploy a tar pit against scrapers you usually need some permissions on the server, it may not help too much for this exact problem in the article (except for some short term fuckery perhaps). poisoning this problem otoh is probably important
deleted by creator
Imo signal protocol is mostly fairly robust, signal service itself is about the best middle ground available to get the general public off bigtech slop.
It compares favorably against whatsapp while providing comparable UX/onboarding/rendevous, which is pretty essential to get your non-tech friends/family out of meta’s evil clutches.
Just the sheer number of people signal’s helped to protect from eg. meta, you gotta give praise for that.
It is lacking in core features which would bring it to the next level of privacy, anonymity and safety. But it’s not exactly trivial to provide ALL of the above in one package while retaining accessibility to the general public.
Personally, I’d be happier if signal began to offer these additional features as options, maybe behind a consent checkbox like “yes i know what i’m doing (if someone asked you to enable this mode & you’re only doing it because they told you to, STOP NOW -> ok -> NO REALLY, STOP NOW IF YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO ENABLE THIS BY ANYONE -> ok -> alright, here ya go…)”.
which is why i’d say clearly identify the source so people can discern.
afaict if you want to fairly criticise kagi its for not moving fast enough on adding clear source referencing & adding methods for users to filter out source types.
is there something i’m missing? are there other reasons to suspect bad faith on kagi’s part?