GloomyBoots

Sometimes I’ll search something benign on Google, DDG, or whatever. And I won’t have disabled safe search. But it will be on moderate by default. And yet, horrifyingly, sometimes I’ll see results that are NSFW.

I mean criticize AI all you want. But it sounds hilarious to act shocked here specifically about aspects of the web that we’ve all grown up accustomed to.

Not the same ethically. I’m not arguing that. But it’s the same mechanics. Browsing a dump floating around on the Internet isn’t the same as stealing someone’s personal info.

The data is already there. You’re not depriving anyone else of it, and as long as you’re not hosting nor seeding it, you’re not sharing it, either. Most of us pretend not to see it, but it’s there regardless.

This feels like a very dated metaphor. When my older brother introduced me Napster, was I actually rifling through Lars Ulrich’s wallet and shaking out mp3s?

In this case, a clone of the wallet has been preserved for all and sundry to peruse. Is it really wrong as a genuinely curious person not to pretend it isn’t there?

There’s a lot to be said about privacy on the Internet. I don’t think there’s much to be gained by attacking those who, out of genuine curiosity, don’t abide by the same polite fictions as the rest of us. I dont like browsing random strangers’ PII. I tend to hope those who do show due respect. And don’t see any sign of malice in GP.

This is one of those situations where it becomes abundantly clear whose dedication to abstract ethics overrides their acknowledgment of material reality and respect for others in terms of real-world safety.

Even that is an incredibly vague and ahistorical definition. It’s strange how much ink is spilled over redefining ‘fascism’ in as vague a way as possible (thinking of Eco here, who remains perennially popular among those who tilt at hooked windmills).

Mussolini did a great job as delineating exactly what fascism was, and the NSDAP fit it, but in general it really doesn’t fit states outside of that particular time and place, including most regimes described as ‘fascist’ today.

The arguments for why Trump is somehow a fascist are among the most facile I’ve ever heard, and I say that having never voted for nor supported Trump, and having even more negative an opinion of him now than I did previously.

Political discourse will never be anything beyond laughable until we can get past screeching at each other over which side is the secret fascist.

Any explanation for ignoring parenthetical text? Is this maybe indirectly inherited from RFC 822?

Pretty sure in this niche a MITM is called a Lucky Pierre.

Well that seems to open up a loophole. Send them the password-protected document. Don’t send the password since it wasn’t explicitly requested. Could even use a one-time pad for good measure since it is just a really long password.

I assumed they were describing ytmnd

This is very nitpicky, but “Nazi” always seems out of place to me in historical discussions. It’s a derisive nickname mainly used by their opponents. It’s convenient, sure, and more recognizable than “national socialist” in popular culture. I use it as well, but it always feels a little goofy, like talking about “commies” in an otherwise serious discussion.

What I saw were claims (and screen recordings) of being instabanned, not mass-blocked, for statements like “there are only two genders” which is a pretty basic conservative stance. One of the sources was that End Wokeness account, so not exactly an unbiased source.

I did make an account to test the waters with such statements, and wasn’t immediately banned, so maybe it’s not true.

I’m not logged in. This is based on what I see as a potential user checking out the site for the first time.

No it wasn’t. The video didn’t make any attempt at believability, and Musk posted it with the text “this is awesome” followed by laughing emojis. The joke could not have been more telegraphed. You may as well complain that SNL is misleading voters.

I don’t care about looking fair. I care about being honest. I’m sorry if you think I’m not doing enough to support your team.

> It's because we've reached a point where the average conservative rhetoric is toxic, harmful and generally flat out incorrect.

Yes, but not particularly.

> Political lines are now about acknowledging facts or not

Political lines are about which facts you accept. On many of the social issues of today, which are far more contentious than economic ones, liberal "facts" are often two lies and a half-truth wearing a trench coat. What liberals[1] want is a monopoly over which facts are on the table, and for all discussion to take place within that framing. And accusations of toxicity, harm, disinformation, and bigotry, are employed as rhetorical tools to preserve that monopoly.

[1]: By "liberals" here I don't mean average liberal voters, but politicians, pundits, influencers, and the class of affluent, politically-engaged people who tend to set the tone generally.

I'm not signed in. Maybe that's why.

Right now I opened the home page, paged down through the top 20 or so bloots or whatever they're called, and got:

- An MSNBC video about fighting back against conservatives

- A post celebrating that a "right-wing lawsuit" to review voter rolls failed

- That BrooklynDad dude complaining about Trump supporters

- A post comparing conservatives to the Empire from Star Wars

- A post chastising White people for having opinions on some controversy involving Black celebrities

A lot of whiny us-against-them rhetoric, but it's not toxic because they are conservatives. In between those, there are cat pictures, some shower thoughts type posts, landscape photos, and comics. This was a marked improvement over the page when I opened it yesterday.