121–130 of 208 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think it’s mining code, I think it’s wallet addresses posted by scammers. Here’s an example of the scam I think this is intended to curb: https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-staticfiles-25g9k/elon_...
I don't understand how someone could be tech-savvy enough to know about ETH and actually own some, while at the same time falling for such scams.
> Twitter just went the easy route and blocked all jsfiddle.net links instead of blocking spammer accounts on their platform. This is a huge problem with all the tech giants that needs to be addressed. I don't expect them to be perfect but I expect them to be open to communications on any level. I also think Twitter is the Twitter today just because of the bots and fake accounts they have since those accounts were cr…
I just don't agree with this sentiment. I don't work for twitter or any social media company, but it strikes me as their prerogative to ban content deemed unsafe if they don't have the means or wherewithal to properly police the content. From an engineering standpoint, how exactly do you propose to scan fiddles for objectionable content. With an image link, you could throw a neural net at it and at least tag it as ns…
Thus any business decision isn't a problem? Whether it's their prerogative, it still a problem in tech.
> to ban content deemed unsafe
Like any links? Or even text itself? The only thing that makes JSFiddle "worst" is how easy it is, but even then almost anything else is just as easy. If there's money to be made too, unless you block everything that cost less than the money to be made, what you do won't stop it.
Why not just put that warning over EVERY single links and not block anything? Do a white list instead.
> Due to the nature of JSFiddle, anyone can post anything, so wallet codes are ok – we did implemented a content filter to shadow-ban these. > I asked Twitter if they they could help out and ban twitter accounts that were posting scam tweets that included links to the rouge fiddles. So they basically sent a message to Twitter saying "We're knowingly hosting malware and we don't intend to remove it, here are some exam…
> We're knowingly hosting malware
Now HN host malware too! That's quite a stretch of the definition.
How many people are actually linking to valid JSFiddle links from Twitter? This might have just been a math decision (X% malware > x% good links). I have my own problems with Twitter, but a social media site with a LOT of non-technical users blocking access to a site specifically designed to run anonymous code in their browser doesn't make me want to break out my pitchfork ...
That seems inherently bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think it’s mining code, I think it’s wallet addresses posted by scammers. Here’s an example of the scam I think this is intended to curb: https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-staticfiles-25g9k/elon_...
holy shit Jita scammers have come out into the real world now. "send me 1,000 isk and i'll send you 2,000 isk back!"
Given the nature of the product, there is no way for the maintainers of Js fiddle to prevent it from being used to run arbitrary code, because that is what it's meant to do. It's also impossible for both jsfiddle or twitter to scan the code of each fiddle and determine if it's legitimate or an attack, so this looks like a good measure from Twitter. What is surprising is how this was even allowed so far and still is i…
Given the nature of the product, there is no way for the maintainers of Js fiddle to prevent it from being used to run arbitrary code, because that is what it's meant to do. There are things they could do though - such as limiting the execution time of a fiddle to a couple of minutes, or limiting the size of the code, or blocking certain calls, and so on. Users are running code that's been saved to the JSFiddle serve…
You do understand that they banned the malicious accounts and contacted Twitter, right? Them behaving responsibly is what caused this mess, not sure why you're implying they have no responsibility to their visitors...
> Due to the nature of JSFiddle, anyone can post anything, so wallet codes are ok – we did implemented a content filter to shadow-ban these. > I asked Twitter if they they could help out and ban twitter accounts that were posting scam tweets that included links to the rouge fiddles. So they basically sent a message to Twitter saying "We're knowingly hosting malware and we don't intend to remove it, here are some exam…
Did you read the actual block quote? > we did implemented a content filter to shadow-ban these JSFiddle shadow-ban these scam accounts, and they asked Twitter to do the same but Twitter bans _all_ JSFiddle URLs instead.
If by shadow ban they mean the link is completely inaccessible to other users then I'll agree that they were doing their part and banning links to their site was excessive.
At what point is the tech community going to abandon twitter? From my perspective it is just bots, "influencers", and propaganda. I see very little social utility for using the network, especially when compared to the damage it is causing through the spread of misinformation and outright lies.
> From my perspective it is just bots, "influencers", and propaganda. That's completely up to you; you need to create your own bubble (for better or worse). What I find bad is that there's no "circles" concept (both incoming and outgoing). While the "incoming" part is not a problem for me, the "outgoing" part is (example: posting slightly conservative views will cause tech snowflakes among your followers to be upset;…
What I find strange how this is presented as an either-or option between banning and not banning. You can also have an intermediate warning page. YouTube does this to any third-party website for example. Something like "Warning: JSFiddle has been abused by spammers to run crypto mining scripts. We recommend that you that you do not continue to this JSFiddle page unless you trust the source of the link" should work ju…