@Evinceo's banner p

Evinceo

Resident Normie

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:40:19 UTC

				

User ID: 224

Evinceo

Resident Normie

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:40:19 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 224

The way online essayists are going to get owned is someone is going to build a model that can take text and spit out candidate authors trained on the whole web corpus.

The amount of effort required to maintain it may not be worth it? There are plenty of ways we could all be more moral if we were willing to restructure our lives around it, but there's got to be diminishing returns.

I generally agree with you and don't use adblocker plugins. However, let's examine some reasons people do.

General privacy/opsec: People are paranoid and don't want to be tracked by third parties while they travel the web. Every once in a while a targeted ad will out me as having browsed something potentially embarrassing or reveal shopping I might have wanted hidden. For example, if TheMotte ran ads, you'd start to get contrarian right wing political books hawked at you across the web-might be awkward if anyone is reading over your shoulder.

Security: Though this is less of a concern now, back when adblock was at peak popularity the perception was that ad networks were undisciplined and would let advertisers place malware on your machine (or even just got compromised.)

Performance: Back in the days of slow internet (or if you ever browse local newspaper sites or Fandom) advertisers would run horrendously inefficient ads and tank page performance. Adblock was popular when lots of people were still running windows-xp era machines after the release of Vista.

He only did what any other Republican would have done though. He didn't need to be Donald Trump to make safe SCOTUS picks.

They really shouldn't be doxing people on a public site. If they only shared dox with trusted associates thay could get their jollies without risking the wrong sort getting their hands on dox. But they've been posting it in the clear for nine years and that makes me think Null is not only ok with the consequences of public doxing, but actively encouraging it.

We ran a natural experiment on the alien invasion thing recently and while nobody went explicitly pro alien, caring about the invaders was definitely blue coded and ignoring was red coded.

There was no info that Kiwifarms considered off limits, was there? Any reasonable definition of dox most include 'the full set of personal information that can be had' right?

Doxing: releasing personally identifiable information about an individual on the internet. An example would be someone's home address.

NYT probably made the wrong call on doxing Scott, however I think there's a significant difference between an org that makes an occasional mistake versus an org which practices something as a matter of course.

Or: just because NTY doxed one guy does not mean Kiwi's use of doxing knowing full well the level of IRL harassment it tends to invite on its targets is ok.

I suppose it's not just the doxing that makes KF distasteful, but the doxing is a line they could opt not to cross and they'd have a lot more friends.

This is the problem with "you cannot post PII." I have suggested the rule being that you cannot publish the street address with enough specificity that a rando could walk up to their door. And I think that is a pretty objective and legible rule!

This is probably a fine definition of doxing. I like this rule. Let's use this one. We'll no longer say that NYT Doxed Scott, instead they 'unmasked' him. KF also unmasks people's internet handles.

And posting PII is pretty easy to do. NYT reports the names and cities of people every day. That is PII. Did they check on each one to make sure it is okay?

Generally, the NYT will try to contact a person that they write about, like all journalists. Are Kiwifarms victims afforded the same advance notice that Scott was afforded about the article being written about him? Do they offer people a chance to tell their own story?

But when I suggest that rule to people who want KF off the internet, they never seem happy to accept it.

If KF redacted personal details like address, contact info, and other obvious conduits for harassment, I still wouldn't like them, but I wouldn't call them... dangerous. I wouldn't say they ought to be knocked offline. They would day that this would hobble their ability to gather information, and they might be right.

Perhaps because they want the rules vague.

You could well say 'it's all OSINT' or 'other services host this type of information.' But come on. Kiwifarms is a site devoted to bullying with a severity and scale that makes them an outlier. The thing about bullies is they'll always find a way to justify their actions. You can't argue your way out of being bullied. I'm not sure if you've ever been in such a situation, but I have, and the way out is to hit back.

That's exactly what happened. someone used Internet-asshole tactics to frame them and get them knocked offline.

All in all, stupid games / stupid prizes.

Maybe it's not particularly cozy, but judging by people leaping to his defense when he's dissed on reddit, I suspect plenty of people have a parasocial relationship with Peterson.

I agree that social media has enabled mind control on a scale we haven't seen before and it's incredibly dangerous, but I'm not sure it's a problem we can fix with censorship exactly. I don't know that censors can be nimble enough to stop the mind virus before it takes off. I'm pessimistic about it.

Within a community I ran, though, I'd definitely ban meme stock promotion.

I'm also not sure banning meme stocks is even a good idea. If someone lost their shirt on meme stocks, weren't they destined for financial ruin one way or another? Should we mandate that retail investors can only do index funds? Should we ban gambling and excessive charity donations, and should we ban liberal arts degrees?

Do we want to ban cults on general principle?

One thing the NFT folks and the GME/AMC folks have in common is the sheer amount of annoying shilling they did in other communities.

That message was mine. The thread I was referencing was this one:

https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/rebmfk/comment/ho8gyfi/

Most unsettling line follows:

I am personally fine with having a minority of females (maybe 5%) used as breeding slaves since that would allow most females to still make their own decisions. I think it's the best solution for raising the fertility rate.

Well, there's one thing you can do, and that is to kick the cultists out of your group when they start trying to sell you something.

I don't think that you can really call GME/AMC rubes getting fleeced a symptom of an unfair society.

In the case of Autism, it can be subjective. Plenty of Autistic people can pass as nt. the definition of Autism has become so broad that a 'cure for Autism' may well remove all future programmers from the population, which would be inconvenient.

The real life cures we're going to see are going to be embryo selection, so it's unlikely that any individual will be able to choose cure or no cure for themselves.

NFT folks got pretty much run out of town on a rail by every community I'm a member of.

Trash still exists somewhere but I prefer keeping it off my lawn.

Defining bad food is surprisingly hard. Most people can agree that empty calories like soda shouldn't be consumed by anyone, but that's about where the agreement ends. Should we all eat like Vegans? You've got to admit, they tend to be skinny. Or are they emaciated? What about keto... do we abolish bread?

Do we ban dessert because some people will eat cake every day if we let them?

I guess your definition of The Man decides if you believe they already have or not.

Not only elect not participate but also actively discourage the discharge from polluting my life.

Modern art fans somehow never need to barge in and ask this question. I can link The Line Goes Up for you, but I assume you've already seen it. My personal gripe with NFTs, besides the tiresome advocacy, the wasteful Blockchain, and the predatory crypto-anarcho-capitalism is the attitude that everything needs to be a digital asset, that we should commodify every damn thing.

And you would enforce this... how? Maybe we'd need to log every food/drug purchase with the government? Social credits? I'll pass on that thanks.