341–350 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty clear where their priorities lay, huh. Breaking the security of their users is less important than getting new users.
Extreme growth hacking
Wasn't it something like 99% of e-mail was spam? The downsides of an open / decentralized platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it? The article indicates at least some of this comes from merely incrementing an integer in the video URLs. > I am now crawling URLs of all videos uploaded to Parler. Sequentially from latest to oldest. VIDXXX.txt files coming up, 50k chunks, there will be 1.1M URLs total...
At least one person has already been prosecuted for "hacking" for incrementing integers in a URL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can think of one benefit of going through Wikileaks (or WaPo): there would be a review by experts of what is legal/responsible to share, redacting for example driver's license uploads.
Wikileaks doesn't vet anything, their policy is to publish whatever they're given. That's why Snowden specifically didn't take the NSA leaks to them.
https://news.antiwar.com/2020/12/16/recording-proves-assange...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Talk about hyperbole. In no way did even 1% of the population on Parler want mass executions for people like you.
Data, evidence? The threat is in giving the fascist terrorist 1% a microphone not that the other 99% happen to be listening. Parler was lax in policing that 1%.
The problem with fascist terrorists is not their rhetoric, it's their violence. Allow them to speak their mind and you lower their need for violent action and everyone else gets to show that their ideas are horribly flawed.
It's amusing to think that people seriously believe there are huge swathes of people just ripe to become neo-nazis because someone gave a rousing speech or wrote some tweets - how do you manage not to succumb to these rhetorical titans?
While I understand that Twilio is probably not at fault for the actual leak, I'm curious if they gave Parler some time to migrate/shift before cutting them off from their services. It's easy not to care since Parler is the "bad guy" here, but I do think that Internet infrastructure companies need to give a reasonable heads-up before pulling the rug under business customers.
Where are the comments about how awful it is for people's private messages to be leaked? Or is this okay because the media told me these guys are the bad guys.
> media told me I create a Parler account myself out of curiosity's sake. The platform had basically no moderation, and was rife with open calls to violence. It was absolutely serving as a recruitment & coordination site for domestic terrorism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> media told me I create a Parler account myself out of curiosity's sake. The platform had basically no moderation, and was rife with open calls to violence. It was absolutely serving as a recruitment & coordination site for domestic terrorism.
And now there are folks right here in this thread who will assume the absolute worst about you and try to ruin your life. I wish you the best of luck in surviving this. This is why it's not reasonable to paint every account there as that of a terrorist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rules are different when the democracy is at stake, as this country's history should have taught you.
Yeahhh... No. A good half the problems in the world are created when we try to force oversized round pegs through undersized square holes. Besides which, was Parler not the site that required excessive amounts of personal info just to sign up? That means if authentication failed open, that could mean that this researcher has obtained access to reams of PII. Which they'll deny or state that of courae they didn't colle…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not gonna lie: I find it very difficult to be upset by this when the site was a haven for people who want to mass executions for people like me. For me, the world is a little more complex than "privacy at all costs." It's hard to decide where to draw the line.
Talk about hyperbole. In no way did even 1% of the population on Parler want mass executions for people like you.
Someone then decide to associate with these people by joining the site. They may not personally post messages calling for violence, but are now associated with them. And the response is: well sure I'm in the group but I don't actually agree with any of this.
Then my question is: why did you join in the first place? If you don't agree with the most vocal 1% (I SERIOUSLY doubt that number after spending time perusing the site), and you don't denounce what they're saying, what do you expect others to think? We're supposed to read your mind that you're part of a "silent dissent" and just joined the site because...?
People were banned from facebook and twitter for calling for violence, if you switched sites specifically to follow that person I have a REAL tough time believing you don't support them.
Where are the comments about how awful it is for people's private messages to be leaked? Or is this okay because the media told me these guys are the bad guys.