While I agree, what does the URl in this particular case tell us? Is it a true quote? Does the new context change its meaning?
Can someone please elaborate, I don’t get it.
Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious
31–40 of 282 posts
Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious
#32I'll start of by saying the author has provided some nice research. However, this particular example is the kind of thing where it doesn't even really matter wether its legitimate or not. The fact that it doesn't attribute it to any particular source makes it almost meaningless. It's basically just saying that some person 100 years ago said "X".
Does it really matter if I have a source for that? This content is clearly not meant to convince, only entertain.
Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not think so. Most of my ipfs bookmarks from 2 years ago are offline now, everything gone because no peer has the content.
FileCoin just recently launched and it aims to fix this exact problem.
It doesn't fix the problem yet, it attempts to solve the lack of incentive to contribute to networks like ipfs/tor. All blockchain with reward based storage solutions I've tried so far don't meet expectations.
To this day, the Internet archive project is the most contributing solution to persistent Web information.
Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious
#34Surely "don't trust everything you read on the Internet" is just a given at this point, especially if it originates on Twitter.
Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious
#35I can really recommend having a look through the blog Yesterday's Print that's mentioned in the post [1]. It's an excellent collection of some interesting, relatable, and humorous snippets from ca. a hundred years ago.
This one they posted about a year ago stuck with me [2].
The saying, "Life is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap. -- The Cincinnati Enquirer, Ohio, February 21, 1947.
[1] https://yesterdaysprint.tumblr.com/
[2] https://yesterdaysprint.tumblr.com/post/176557878119/the-cin...
Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious
#36And any claim with one, doubly so.
-- Abe Lincoln abe@I-chopped-the-cherry-tree.gov
Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious
#37Site down... Shows ReCAPTCHA in an infinite loop...
>Site down... Shows ReCAPTCHA I suppose this is cloudflare + their new captcha provider. This behavior is annoying / suspicious. They know the site is down, yet make people solve captcha repeatedly before finally telling them that the site is down.
They're incentivised to do this. hCAPTCHA pays them for it.
Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
FileCoin just recently launched and it aims to fix this exact problem.
How does adding crypto fix this problem? I presume it's to incentivize peers into retaining and serving the content, but who's going to pay? The author? The viewer? How is either going to work for long tail content that's been abandoned by the author?
Wait, hmm... maybe if we use the blockchain here we can solve those problems too?
Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious
#39Completely tangential, I never understand why people use URI instead of URL. He obviously means URL and goes an abstraction lower. You could also say without the corresponding internet uniquely scheme or whatever. Sorry for the rant. But I am missing something?
I'm the author of the blog post. It's a good question but, yes, you are missing something. Mostly me being an idiot. https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2020/03/it-is-spelled-url/ I usually spell it upper-u upper-r lower-L specifically to annoy both sides of the argument. (I'm not sure why the submitter substituted the l for I.)
> (I'm not sure why the submitter substituted the l for I.)
Sounds like they fell victim to your deliberate trolling. Is that not an expected outcome?
I, for one, am amused at the implication that we should trust an inaccessible file:// link...
Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious
#40I would've agreed with this a bit more if we hadn't started banning content we don't like from the internet. Here I am without a link, but chasing away groups we don't agree with to the dark side of the web makes it very convenient for the current political saints to shape our views. I take any claim with URIs or without, try to think about who gains from such perspectives, weigh it with past experiences. I'd hate to…
Amen