Live data from Hacker News

DNS over Wikipedia

github.com

91–100 of 168 posts

Re: DNS over Wikipedia

#91
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We live in an imperfect society where extremists leverage the very real flaws to insist that everything is absolutely corrupt and that we should embrace the exact opposite of anything that’s imperfect. Vaccines don’t prevent 100% of all infections for everyone? They’re obviously complete frauds that do no good at all. The sad thing is that we have real problems, and this nihilistic insistence that everything is fake…

Quoted post unavailable.

He made a point, what’s yours?

Re: DNS over Wikipedia

#92
post #32

Wikipedia editors have noticed that people use wikipedia for this purpose (finding the current location of sites) and so they have started to censor links for sites they don't want to encourage people to access. Right now this mostly impacts sites few would condone, like 8chan or kiwifarms. But in theory the policy applies to any site with illegal material so places like the pirate bay or scihub could have their link…

Could hardcode the values for those sites in the extension in that case.

Re: DNS over Wikipedia

#94
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> How about this: try posting an URL for kiwifarms or stormfront or whatever right here, in this thread. See if it stays up. See who's willing to tolerate it. Man, I almost did. But people just get so irrationally angry about words on the internet nowadays that I decided against tempting fate. I don't need people trying to destroy my career because I don't irrationally hate the right people right now. Yes, Kiwi Farms…

Hey when you think that everyone else is being irrational guess what?

Re: DNS over Wikipedia

#95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't know is, I see mainstream media become increasingly curated and clearly agenda driven. Is this a function of reality or me getting better at spotting it? I felt as though in the 90s CNN legitimately was a good news source. Early 21centuey VICE was legitimately good. Today there is next to nothing given anything other than a heavily biased view. I think the internet has made things worse, there's a new ki…

> I felt as though in the 90s CNN legitimately was a good news source. Nope. They were the original cheerleaders of modern militarism, from the first Persian Gulf War, which they turned into an infotainment spectacle devoid of any serious critical analysis, to their promotion of NAFTA and neo-liberalism. This idea that things were better in the past is a form of rosy retrospection and nostalgia. Things weren’t better…

It goes back into at least the 80s as well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

Re: DNS over Wikipedia

#96
post #32

Wikipedia editors have noticed that people use wikipedia for this purpose (finding the current location of sites) and so they have started to censor links for sites they don't want to encourage people to access. Right now this mostly impacts sites few would condone, like 8chan or kiwifarms. But in theory the policy applies to any site with illegal material so places like the pirate bay or scihub could have their link…

I'm genuinely shocked people haven't been redirecting this to Tubgirl. Frankly, I'm a little disappointed.

Re: DNS over Wikipedia

#97

We live in a distopia where one of the last search engines that returns real results related to anything the western mainstream "hidden forces" do not want you to be able to see is Yandex, a company located under a dictatorship. In 2022, the only way for a regular citizen to approximate what is reality, what is the "truth", is to look for information provided from the opposite side of any argument you're trying to un…

As things stand Wikipedia is pretty good. Non-contentious topics are free to edit by everyone, contentious/political/hotbutton/etc topics have restricted editorship.

I do not sense any specific bias. As usual, "freedom of speech" does not imply a right to be listened to.

Also, I do not buy this dystopia claim. In 99.99% of all topics we know exactly what is true and what is not. The sky is blue, clouds are condensed water, the earth is a sphere, there is racism, there is poverty, wealth is unevenly distributed over the planet, hygiene helps prevent sickness, vaccinations have prevented a lot of suffering, social security is expensive, etc, etc.

The facts are easy. We used to argue about consequences stemming from these facts and what do to about it. These days we tend to confuse our disagreements with "alternate facts".

It's really not that hard to stay informed.

Re: DNS over Wikipedia

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't need people trying to destroy my career because I don't irrationally hate the right people right now. You don't "irrationally" hate them probably because you happen not to fit the target profile. EDIT: And are you serious? You truly think that KiwiFarms is a quirky, harmless place that just collects info to do nothing with it, and at the same time believe that on HN you'd be targeted by people who'd try to…

Oh, God, I'm being dragged into this debate again. > There's no such thing as "just words on the internet". Words express beliefs and intent. I take them seriously. Intent? Find me a post on KF stating intent to harm someone in real life which wasn't either downvoted or promptly deleted. Go ahead. > Of course. The sort of people that compile elaborate profiles on people including personal information are some sort of…

> Intent? Find me a post on KF stating intent to harm someone in real life which wasn't either downvoted or promptly deleted. Go ahead.

Are you new to online communities? I've been a core member of several for years.

There's always politics, admin only channels, and people contacting each other outside the main system. Sometimes multiple levels, like two admins talking in private, then adding a third, then bringing it into the admin channel, then breaking the news into the main community.

In communities where there's external attacks, or a concern with reputation, the people in charge typically take that seriously. It's very possible that something is publicly forbidden, but with the right contacts you can find the right people.

> Create an alt account on KF and post in a lolcow's thread saying that you want to harm that person in real life.

Which is unsurprising because formerly kiwifarms used traditional hosting, and had to at least keep some plausible deniability. But everyone knows what all that stuff they post is for.

> You'll be downvoted into oblivion, probably banned, possibly doxed if you used the same username as you use elsewhere, and possibly reported to law enforcement.

Sure, and if you know the right people on the right Discord, then you can avoid all that and discuss all the plans and share all the juicy news away from prying eyes.

Besides which, the info is public. Anyone can act on it without being a member, or having any agreement on anything with people posting there.

Re: DNS over Wikipedia

#100
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't need people trying to destroy my career because I don't irrationally hate the right people right now. You don't "irrationally" hate them probably because you happen not to fit the target profile. EDIT: And are you serious? You truly think that KiwiFarms is a quirky, harmless place that just collects info to do nothing with it, and at the same time believe that on HN you'd be targeted by people who'd try to…

> There's no such thing as "just words on the internet". Words express beliefs and intent. I take them seriously. How do you decide which words people should be allowed to read, and which words they should not be allowed to read?

I wasn't talking about that, but since you asked: My personal views and morals, just like everyone else. If you're on something I host, then I make the rules on my property.
Post reply on HN