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

So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

cole-k.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 681 posts

Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

#141

Post by mothballed »

teeray wrote: post #120
felooboolooomba wrote: post #13

Meta has spent $2B on verification lobbying. Very successfully it seems. In 1-2 years, you won't be able to browse the internet without scanning a body part and providing a ID for your ass. https://www.gadgetreview.com/reddit-user-uncovers-who-is-beh...

I really wish there was a way for the electorate to preempt the votes of their representatives, so this kind of lobbying would be less effective. Sure, they might try carpet bombing the airwaves with PSA campaigns, but if the people really really don’t want what the lobbyist is selling, they would still be able to rip the ballot out of their congress critter’s hands and change the vote.

Ballot initiative. Californians tried that to stop "gay marriage" (Prop 8) so the courts just told the people to fuck themselves and overturned it. Again in South Dakota for legalizing marijuana, the voters voted in favor by special initiative so the state just overturned it.

Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

#142

Post by subscribed »

walrus01 wrote: post #128
subscribed wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "WhatsApp on her phone" GP clearly said she doesn't have WhatsApp.

If I had a dollar for every time I've seen an older person that doesn't even know what application they're running, or can't tell the difference between the content of a website inside a browser window and an application that runs natively on their computer. I read what the GP wrote, I'm saying there's a non zero possibility she's misunderstanding something. It seems like something you have to specifically choose, on…

I choose to not call a GP a liar or too thick for being unable to differentiate between apps :)

I also chose their presumed first hand statement than your unrelated experience with unrelated third parties.

Your point re: having to subscribe to WhatsApp notifications, if we're staying in the realm of "what ifs" and looking for the awkward but possible ways to discredit the claims, I can believe that she was enrolled without being asked. I've seen at least one person complaining about that exact scenario.

Cheers!

Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

#143

Post by red-iron-pine »

benjiro29 wrote: post #84

As somebody who did plenty of scraping for his own little projects, lets just say that reddit their security concerns are just PR for "we do not want to keep supporting old.reddit". While yes, you can not simply scrap new reddit as easily as a pure html scraper is cheaper to run. And while the new reddit its js "slow down" scraping as it need to run over a headless browser. Do you slow scraping down a lot? No. Becaus…

> "we do not want to keep supporting old.reddit"

the second old.reddit goes is the second I stop using that site

it's already very obviously chock full of slop and AI bullshit, with some subs having long unavoidable lists of "your post was removed because you did not verify" trails that imply that automated posters found a thread and went hard

but add in privacy crushing bs -- no reason to be there anymore. Back to old school forums

Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

#144

Post by dagurp »

Klonoar wrote: post #63
account42 wrote: post #28

I noticed they logged me out when I happened on a link recently. I don't think this change will make me log back in. The value of the site has already crashed, now the only question is which site will manage to capture the mainstream link/image discussion next. > This is because appending site: reddit.com to a search query is basically a surefire way to find results written by genuine humans. This hasn't been true fo…

Reddit has almost 20 years of comments. You could certainly argue that it's less true now that there's legitimate people commenting, but there are years old threads on there with very helpful and valuable information that you can only really find via some incantations of Google search.

More than 20 years

Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

#145

Post by Klonoar »

dagurp wrote: post #144
Klonoar wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reddit has almost 20 years of comments. You could certainly argue that it's less true now that there's legitimate people commenting, but there are years old threads on there with very helpful and valuable information that you can only really find via some incantations of Google search.

More than 20 years

Put a fork in me, I'm done.

Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

#146

Post by qwerpy »

rjh29 wrote: post #73
LaurensBER wrote: post #17

For users, Reddit has been in a downwards spiral since the IPO. It's pretty clear that their focus is no longer on providing the best communities (see the many examples of power hungry mods, see below) or the best UX (see the deprecation of the API or the recent changes to old.reddit.com described in the post). The "product" is now selling data to LLM companies, everything else is clearly a secondary concern. It's a…

You can still enjoy Reddit and it's still a useful source of information. Just avoid the popular subs (including those you mention) or anything with 100k users or more. It's not difficult.

I tried this for a while. My local subs have been taken over by ideologues and the niche subs still get political/outrage bait flare-ups regularly. I've decided that the best way to consume reddit is through an intermediary, whether it's Google or an LLM that I ask to crawl through subs for recent posts, remove emotional/political content, and summarize for me. Ironically that's exactly what Reddit is trying to prevent, but when push comes to shove I'm happy to miss out on the 5% of useful stuff rather than have to wade through the memes, outrage, and bots.

Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

#147

Post by Cider9986 »

iugtmkbdfil834 wrote: post #24
felooboolooomba wrote: post #13

Meta has spent $2B on verification lobbying. Very successfully it seems. In 1-2 years, you won't be able to browse the internet without scanning a body part and providing a ID for your ass. https://www.gadgetreview.com/reddit-user-uncovers-who-is-beh...

While your post is joking in tone, depending on how much we push back now is the exact level of delta between actual future and 'drink verification' copypasta[1]. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/copypasta/comments/1dfea32/drink_ve...

>You've been blocked by network security. To continue, log in to your Reddit account or use your developer token

....

Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

#148

Post by felooboolooomba »

NuclearPM wrote: post #97
masfuerte wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My mother tried to buy something on Amazon yesterday. It wouldn't let her check-out until she'd entered a code sent via WhatsApp. Which she doesn't have and doesn't want. She'll be buying her tat on eBay in future. I dream that Amazon will lose lots of sales and backtrack, but I don't suppose they will.

What is a tat?

tat n.

  anything that looks cheap, is of low quality, or in bad condition:
  * Like most souvenir shops, it sells a lot of old tat.
  * I'm not spending fifty quid on a piece of tat.
People buy it all the time when they practice retail therapy.

Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

#149

Post by felooboolooomba »

Aurornis wrote: post #38
felooboolooomba wrote: post #13

Meta has spent $2B on verification lobbying. Very successfully it seems. In 1-2 years, you won't be able to browse the internet without scanning a body part and providing a ID for your ass. https://www.gadgetreview.com/reddit-user-uncovers-who-is-beh...

Meta has not spent $2 billion on ID lobbying. That bogus number came from a complete AI slop Reddit post that was later removed. That’s why the only references you can find to it are from sites like your gadgetreview.com link that repost clickbait without fact checking anything.

Meta hasn't corrected it and there's absolutely no way I give Meta the benefit of a doubt.

Re: So Reddit has decided that plain HTML is unsafe

#150

Post by red-iron-pine »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #114
willis936 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any plans for reddit to compensate their contributors?

Those little virtual stickers isn't enough? What else could you possibly want as compensation?

ideally? blowjobs. i ain't shitposting for karma, dammit
Post reply on HN