f3zinker
Its A/B testing all the way down
titivate 1yr ago·Edited 1yr ago
I am always fascinated by digital activity related paranoia to this extent. Most of the time it betrays a ignorance of how computer systems work. And bad fermi estimation abilities.
How you would get put on a list is if a certain website is considered a congregation place for the types of people who are usually added to lists, people coming into the site will be added to the list.
This is orders of magnitude less compute/bandwidth-intensive than checking every internet search. That would be markedly insane, and I doubt the world has enough CPU power/money/political will to pull that off.
Think of it this way, there are thousands of pipes leading to thousands of buckets. It's infinitely cheaper to monitor one specific bucket to find what you are looking for, as opposed to monitoring all the pipes.
This is orders of magnitude less compute/bandwidth-intensive than checking every internet search. That would be markedly insane, and I doubt the world has enough CPU power/money/political will to pull that off.
I don't think this is even close to being true. It'd be relatively trivial in terms of compute power for google to, say, generate a list of everyone who ever searched the word "tor". The trickier part would be correlating with your real-world identity, but google is already doing that just so it can advertise to you better, so I'd say not only is this not insane, I'd say it's already being done: you're already on that list as soon as you do the search, and it's just a question of who has access to it, and whether "The list of everyone searching for tor" would be too many people to be useful. If some federal agency wants a list of everyone who ever searched for "tor", it's only a matter of whether they can get google to turn over that information. The compute power required is trivial.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I am always fascinated by digital activity related paranoia to this extent. Most of the time it betrays a ignorance of how computer systems work. And bad fermi estimation abilities.
How you would get put on a list is if a certain website is considered a congregation place for the types of people who are usually added to lists, people coming into the site will be added to the list.
This is orders of magnitude less compute/bandwidth-intensive than checking every internet search. That would be markedly insane, and I doubt the world has enough CPU power/money/political will to pull that off.
Think of it this way, there are thousands of pipes leading to thousands of buckets. It's infinitely cheaper to monitor one specific bucket to find what you are looking for, as opposed to monitoring all the pipes.
I don't think this is even close to being true. It'd be relatively trivial in terms of compute power for google to, say, generate a list of everyone who ever searched the word "tor". The trickier part would be correlating with your real-world identity, but google is already doing that just so it can advertise to you better, so I'd say not only is this not insane, I'd say it's already being done: you're already on that list as soon as you do the search, and it's just a question of who has access to it, and whether "The list of everyone searching for tor" would be too many people to be useful. If some federal agency wants a list of everyone who ever searched for "tor", it's only a matter of whether they can get google to turn over that information. The compute power required is trivial.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link