251–260 of 318 posts
I am still pissed that Wikipedia calls it a conspiracy theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Internet_theory Wasn’t WP supposed to be impartial and avoid passing judgement?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dead_Internet_theory#c-Bo...
I only see two outcomes for this problem : an internet of verified identities (start by uploading your ID card). Or a paid internet, where it doesn't matter who you are, but since you're going to pay for that email or that reddit account, the probability that it's AI spam is greatly reduced. And i'm looking forward to none of them.
I only see two outcomes for this problem : an internet of verified identities (start by uploading your ID card). Or a paid internet, where it doesn't matter who you are, but since you're going to pay for that email or that reddit account, the probability that it's AI spam is greatly reduced. And i'm looking forward to none of them.
Friend of a friend verification could side-step that, if there is a good way to penalize bad actors willing to violate the principle.
I only see two outcomes for this problem : an internet of verified identities (start by uploading your ID card). Or a paid internet, where it doesn't matter who you are, but since you're going to pay for that email or that reddit account, the probability that it's AI spam is greatly reduced. And i'm looking forward to none of them.
There's a third option: web-of-trust. https://lobste.rs/ has some problems but not bot spam.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Traffic stats for my primary blog are public (I only started using simple analytics in December so there's only two full months of data): https://dashboard.simpleanalytics.com/amiantos.net
If you think a site with only 209 visitors in the past 30 days is going to move the needle, then I've got news for you. Especially if bots are the main source of that visitors count. That's very very close to the number of people visiting your site being you, you, and maybe your mom type of numbers. After that, it'll be skiddies and bots. Anybody that's run their own site has been there, but let's not make it out to…
Tbh, for niche hobbies even one new visitor a month is a win, if they actually read the article and not skim over it. An eager enthusiastic listener is a price not easily won on the internet. Having even one per month would mean you personally taught something to a classroom of peers in a meager 2 years. Blogposts easily can move live ten times as longer.
For people that spend most of their time on small internet, sites like that are essential, because they work on another level. You know you engage with someone who has a passion for the same things you do, and had a time to polish their words. You know you can reach out for help and be kindly greeted.
This is parts of the internet that are so boring for anyone else, they are totally safe from spam and ads. That doesn't scale, can never scale, if anything like that becomes popular, the massive slopfest would follow and the slop would be sold instead of the original.
And yet those boring places – boring for everyone not interested enough – are there, and people have a way to reach to each other and talk to each other about shared interests. The internet isn't dead for nerds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Friend of a friend verification could side-step that, if there is a good way to penalize bad actors willing to violate the principle.
I don't think any web-of-trust systems ever worked. It might be a bad example but PGP tried to make it a thing for over 30 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I want cool cryptography where I can, e.g. verify where I'm writing from and what my age is without giving away any other information. Or if I want, I can verify that I'm myself, and eschew anonymity, and certain platforms should only accept contributions from people who don't hide their identity. Everyone knows who you are in the town square.
What stops someone from handing over their idendity’s private keys to an agent?
Hey it’s what executives want. Fake everything. Slop and robots everywhere. Have at it, I say. Maybe then people will go outside again
I wish going outside again were possible, but what if most of the people you actually want to hang out with aren't in the same area? And for those who are near, the cost of having a coffee or a drink is too much now on top of expenses that are already stretching,
Maybe when we switched to a fully online adult world with its hyper-optimization of everything, we've put our potential friends in the same bucket with recommendation system-driven content like music and tv-shows. Dating too.
There are certain benefits in getting by with limited choice, when we learn to communicate with people who are not a 100% match.
And as for having a drink or a coffee- we can always just invite the friends over. Hanging out in each others' apartments is fun and cheap
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Friend of a friend verification could side-step that, if there is a good way to penalize bad actors willing to violate the principle.
I don't think any web-of-trust systems ever worked. It might be a bad example but PGP tried to make it a thing for over 30 years.
But plenty has worked on a smaller scale. Raph Levien's Advogato worked fine.
There's also a reason most new social networks start up as invite only - it works great for cutting down on spam accounts. But once they pivot to prioritizing growth at all costs, it goes out the window.