Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DNS over Wikipedia

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 168 posts

Re: DNS over Wikipedia

#121

Post by mistercheph »

psychphysic wrote: post #45
kikokikokiko wrote: post #39

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…

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…

This has always been the case, it's just that the dial has been turned from industrial dystopia to nightmare.

Re: DNS over Wikipedia

#122

Post by LastTrain »

haroldp wrote: post #108
LastTrain wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh and you think you are exceptional too. Shall we go for the trifecta?

> Oh and you think you are exceptional too. Of course. Everyone does. > Shall we go for the trifecta? Shall we put your notion in a historical context or no?

Unless you are someone of historical significance, no.

Re: DNS over Wikipedia

#123

Post by mistercheph »

linuxhansl wrote: post #97
kikokikokiko wrote: post #39

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…

This is the style of thinking that is drilled into children from a young age. No one has ever discovered anything, mankind has not continually rediscovered the world and then forged dogmas and killed dissenters and then burned the dogmas and killed the priests of the former dogma. There is Capital T Truth and Capital F Factx. No one is responsible for those factx, they just exist and are delivered by God into the minds of men. Looking out my window right now, the sky is grey.

Re: DNS over Wikipedia

#124

Post by Thorentis »

This isn't DNS (resolving IPs to FQDNs) as much as resolving DNS prefixes to their current suffixes.

As others have pointed out, Wikipedia is starting to censor results just like Google. Maybe it would be better for this extension to pivot into providing their own service that performs this task.

Re: DNS over Wikipedia

#126

Post by g_hn_liaison »

ajross wrote: post #43
kikokikokiko wrote: post #39

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…

Quoted post unavailable.

Everyone's already taken the bait, but I'm an awful fish, so I'll post their secret .onion url: kiwifarmsaaf4t2h7gc3dfc5ojhmqruw2nit3uejrpiagrxeuxiyxcyd.onion

It's not really something I'd be comfortable with either, so I get it, but everyone in this thread should at least understand that the average kiwi farms thread is roughly as offensive as the conversations at every job site that constructed all your houses, every field that grew your vegetables, and every rig that pumped the oil for your car. I'm not saying it's okay, but you have to accept it to some extent. Those people are out there offline, too.

While you're at it, check out their "Christmas Art" thread and think of the average Nazi spending most of their time being a perfectly polite and non-hateful person: https://archive.ph/TffRs

Re: DNS over Wikipedia

#127

Post by maxique »

appletrotter wrote: post #92
voxic11 wrote: 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.

Which defeats the object when the URLs change so often, and we're back to the original problem.

Re: DNS over Wikipedia

#128

Post by pessimizer »

If this takes off, it's just going to result in a court order against Wikipedia. Z-lib getting popular on Tiktok = no z-lib anymore. Getting Wikipedia censored will ultimately make it harder for people to find sites like scihub.

Re: DNS over Wikipedia

#129

Post by dale_glass »

haroldp wrote: post #112
dale_glass wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on what you mean. If you mean documenting its existence, then no, because we have to learn from history. So I wouldn't have an issue with an article on antisemitism or the like. But if I found out that something I own actually helps Nazis, then yes, I'd do my best to stop that from happening. If I suddenly ended up owning Stormfront or Kiwifarms, I would absolutely pull the plug and burn it all to the ground…

> But if I found out that something I own actually helps Nazis, then yes, I'd do my best to stop that from happening. But the internet helps nazis. Telephones help nazis. I would argue that censorship helps nazis. The real nazis were completely censored from Weimar radio and Goebbels touted Der Angriff as "the most censored newspaper" by the German government. What is our standard for "helps"? Side note: the wikipedi…

> But the internet helps nazis. Telephones help nazis.

I'm a consequentialist. I'll make the decision based on the overall consequences. So for instance the internet helps nazis, but it also does a lot of good for a lot more people. Now if the effect of the internet was 99% to help nazis, that would be a problem.

> Side note: the wikipedia article for stormfront retains the link to the site. Removal was discussed on the Talk page, but retained with rather pointed language.

Like I said, that's up to them to decide. If it was up to me, I would not allow that link.

Re: DNS over Wikipedia

#130

Post by pessimizer »

p0pcult wrote: post #49
psychphysic wrote: post #45

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 think it is a function of game theory akin to Prisoner's Dilemma. If all the news sources are rather centrist (i.e., they all "cooperate"), then no one gains or loses audiences because of bias. This is a good strategy when publishing is expensive. However, as the costs of publishing drop, it becomes profitable to shave off niche (smaller) audiences, with biased publication. This begins the defection phase of the PD…

> niche (smaller) audiences, with biased publication.

We could just call them specialized audiences with particular interests, instead of equating the neoliberal centrism of a bunch of collaborating oligarchic publications to lack of bias.

edit: e.g. if all of the publications collaborate to not discuss issues concerning Mexican-Americans, a defector who peels off a large audience by being the only publication that attends to Mexican-American issues would not be an example of "bias" except under extremely normative definitions of "bias."

Post reply on HN