101–110 of 401 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d imagine some people would actually find that useful if they offered a backup and restore feature. No more “why did I come in this room again?” moments.
Don't fucking encourage this lol
What I do know, however, is that most people seem to be willing to give up everything for a little convenience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It looks like the "tampering" was mostly just removing the username of the person submitting the links, so they wouldn't get banned by paywall sites, and archive.today has always done this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment... And it looks like in some instances they changed their own alias to the name of the blogger they're in dispute with, in a fit of pique. You have to scroll down to get…
In addition to that kind of “benign” tampering, there was also tampering other webpages to insert the name of the person who was doing the exposé on archive.is. Either to slander that person further (in addition to the DDOS archive.is was already attempting) or to dox the person.
I don't get why they couldn't just say what they did instead of disingenuously implying that article content had been "tampered".
Given the breadth of misinformation out there today, shoddy evidence and misleading language makes people give archive.today the benefit of the doubt, and actually hurts the case against them.
The EFF or some other watchdog should put out some public ads that depict corporations as a creepy person stalking someone: It's a lot more disgusting and universally hated when you hear about a peeping tom, or a pervert, or a jealous ex hounding someone, but when faceless corporations and governments do it to EVERYBODY 24/7, everyone's like, ehh. I mean, right now, just think about me, clicking on your HN profile, g…
Corporations aren't people. They do not and cannot present a personal threat to you.
Even your trailing example falls flat on this: for the activity to be distressing you had to recontextualize it back to the individual level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost every person installs security cameras hoping that one day they will "catch the criminal" unaware that the footage probably is used in all possible ways all the time, yet in case when the crime against them finally happens the footage might not be admitted as a proof.
No I install security cameras as a deterrent measure to keep people at my door front measured in their interactions, particularly when it may just be my wife at home alone. They are mounted extremely obviously for this purpose. I greatly hope they never catch anyone doing anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What happens when you're meeting up with someone? With the folks I know who don't have a phone, this is always a real pain point because they don't have a way to communicate or receive changes of plans, "I'm going to be late", etc...
We agree on when to meet and where, and then we both actually show up. The whole last-minute plan changing thing is a pretty recent phenomenon, I believe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree, you’re either a digital hermit or you’re part of the problem / system
It’s enticing to believe we coulda gone another way. Such as having a paid versions of these services. But free is just Soooo enticing. It hacks peoples brains.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> making the right way as easy as possible I wish I knew what you were talking about here. It seems like the easy way would be to forbid the collection of this data… but that is obviously not happening, so I need a different part 2.
consider what GP complained about - everyone carrying phones that data is collected from/by, and useing Meta products making easier the alternatives to phone tracking means promoting life outside phones, promoting cellphones/OSes that don't spy on you and explaining ways to minimize tracking (like disabling apps' access to the internet) making easier the alternatives to Meta means promoting competitors, promoting com…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, this is not the way to go. Consumers cannot possibly understand all potential ways in which they can be screwed over, and even if they could, it is entirely likely that there are no good choices because consumers will have to choose between e.g privacy violation or environmental destruction, or privacy violation of some degree vs another degree. This is why governments exist.
> Consumers cannot possibly understand all potential ways in which they can be screwed over In a democracy, consumers and the government are the exact same thing. Since they ostensibly do not understand all of the potential ways in which they can be screwed over, how is calling themselves government going to magically change that? Maybe you are imagining a dictatorship instead, where the government is only a subset o…
This is a straw man. Consumers are represented by representatives who should have their interests in mind, e.g the consumer votes for someone who in turn votes for outcomes. This means that there can absolutely be a difference in knowledge between the government and its citizens, and so no, they are not the exact same thing. One group is trying to do their job of being a citizen, while the other group should be doing their job of representing the interests of the citizens that voted on them in whatever is relevant. One job clearly should not involve making sure your privacy isn't constantly and covertly violated by foreign nationals, and one job clearly should. Which is which is an exercise for the reader.
> but in a functioning market
Great! Where can I find me one of those?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't put on the Internet what you don't want found as it's always and forever public, I thought everyone knew the first rule.
Oh boy. It's NOT about whether something's "public" or not: It's about someone "connecting the dots" between ALL your public activities. Someone following you OUTSIDE their "space" that you visited and then invading your other spaces. People don't usually want to mix their social circles. e.g. nobody likes a snoopy overprotective parent following their [teen] kids around wherever the children go with their friends. N…
I do understand what you are getting at. I just don’t find people repulsive by being curious of me; even if they find materials I myself did not make public.
As an aside, I sometimes stumble upon websites of people who write and show pictures of themselves and their family. I find them beautiful[0] to visit and hope more people would do that, as was more common 20 years ago.