341–350 of 506 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The nomenclature could use some polish, but on HN we know they mean ability to bypass technological restrictions .
I am probably not part of the "we" you are talking about, but I had no idea "normie" means that, and I couldn't infer it from the comment. In fact I inferred a completely wrong meaning from that comment (something like "unenlightened"). Isn't "normie" a pejorative word (genuine question)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wikipedia looks like a fantastic resource, but it's not really a reliable source of information. It's about as reliable it gets. It cites sources, has whole history available, has little conflicts of interest and has transparent editorial guidelines and process. Many people are probably shocked to find views in WP that aren't aligned with what their newsmedia reports and frames.
Wikipedia is often wrong once you stray from mainstream topics. Subspecialties often have 1-2 super-contributors, whose blind spots and misunderstandings become part of Wikipedia. Plenty of articles also have no actual citations of their technical content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, adblockers have an inordinate amount of access. We all trust uBlock’s creator but I’ve never met him. So it’s a realistic risk but we (hope) not a threat
The ones using declarative blocking (like everything compatible with Safari or newer Manifest V3 web extensions for Chrome and Firefox) don't need access to your browsing context. They're not as powerful as the ones that are able to inject content into visited pages or programmatically inspect and block/alter HTTP requests, but personally I think it's a reasonable tradeoff for the reasons you mentioned. Chrome/Google…
"ANI has been accused of acting as a propaganda tool for the current central government, distributing content from a vast network of fake news websites, and misreporting events on several occasions."[1]
Hindi Wikipedia also addresses the lawsuit between ANI and Wikipedia in the same article as this alleged "defamatory information" instead of having a translated version of the English Wikipedia ANI v Wikimedia case.[2][3]
Bengali Wikipedia (language spoken by 9% of Indians) is a stub article that still manages to make similar remarks to Hindi Wikipedia.[4]
Telugu Wikipedia (language spoken by 8% of Indians) has favorable coverage of ANI but still addresses the lawsuit between ANI and Wikipedia.[5]
Malayalam Wikipedia (language spoken by 3% of Indians) just has a stub article that says nothing much.[6]
edit: Answer appears to be "On 14 October, Delhi High Court justices Manmohan and Tushar Rao Gedela objected to the creation of an English Wikipedia article about the defamation case, saying the article "disclos[ed] something about a sub-judice matter" and "will have to be taken down", and scheduled review for 16 October. On 16 October, the court stated that "Accordingly, in the interim, this Court directs that the pages on Wikipedia pertaining to the single judge as well as discussion of the observations of division bench be taken down or deleted within 36 hours".".[7][8]
[1] https://hi-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%E0%A4%8F%E0%...
[2] https://hi-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%E0%A4%8F%E0%...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International_vs._W...
[4] https://bn-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%E0%A6%8F%E0%...
[5] https://te-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%E0%B0%8F%E0%...
[6] https://ml-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%E0%B4%8F%E0%...
[7] Deleted article: https://archive.md/XIxZv#selection-2289.0-2351.1
[8] Deleted article: https://archive.md/CcA6Q
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikipedia looks like a fantastic resource, but it's not really a reliable source of information. Everyone can write things there, including people with biases and conflicting interests. Their rules about editing are really annoying and unfair, they don't care about facts. I enjoy reading Wikipedia sometimes, but it's a broken system, a lot of truths missing in it's articles because of crap editors and political propa…
> Wikipedia looks like a fantastic resource, but it's not really a reliable source of information. It's about as reliable it gets. It cites sources, has whole history available, has little conflicts of interest and has transparent editorial guidelines and process. Many people are probably shocked to find views in WP that aren't aligned with what their newsmedia reports and frames.
The key point, which perfectionists miss or more likely just don't agree with, is about being less wrong. WP is time and again show to be less wrong than supposedly trusted or more formal resources.
When it started many people would look to the Encyclopedia Britannica as more reliable yet research showed that on average it contained more errors and that's with the occasional inexperienced/ rogue editor on the WP side.
EDIT: fixed my own typo! (relatable -> reliable)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just the newer generations. I have multiple friends who are literally afraid of using ad blockers and sideloading apps on their Macs in fear of some imaginary boogeyman out to get them. And VPNs are exclusively the domain of criminals, apparently. There are a dominating amount of people who have turned into the caricature of the perfect CONSUMER. It is so frustrating.
"With software, either the users control the program, or the program controls the users." - Richard M. Stallman, 2011, writing in Der Spiegel He was right. He was always right. About all of it. People didn't listen, or perhaps were never introduced to his ideas. Software grew faster than the idea of free software (on some level this was inevitable, since the latter is by definition a subset of the former). And so, th…
On January 18 2012, Wikipedia went black to draw attention to SOPA [0], a bill they described as one that "could fatally damage the free and open Internet". Since then, we've seen a slow and steady march in the direction we all dreaded. Country after country has decided that they have the right to block content on the "free and open Internet", and business after business (even those who joined the SOPA protests) has…
We must work to build an inter[dark]net which ideally fully divorces the user from the government and laws of the country the user is physically in (unless the user leaks his dox).
In the end, the real service social networks offer is moderation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I missed it, apparently. Link?
They banned people employed by sanctioned organisations from being maintainers. This one worked for a company making hardware for the Russian military. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41932225
And in any case, the leader of an open project should do everything to keep the project open, including defying an immoral and unjust law, or at the very least doing bare minimum compliance. They certainly shouldn't happily jump on the bandwagon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You must have missed the other news this week. Linux has joined the dark side too. Banning people based on nationality is certainly against freedom and any kind of ethics worthy of being called that.
> Linux has joined the dark side too. Banning people based on nationality "Linux" is not banning anybody. They must comply with the sanctions against Putin regime that many governments in the world raised, in response to insane Putin's behavior. Linux is not banning people based on nationality, is banning people based on their employers that is a different question. Linux has every right to ban somebody that would be…