yep, its ridiculous. and its only going to get worse

there is some/broad consensus that we can do better than iptables these days

oh yeah i have no doubt about that. just wondering what a healthy timeline looks like for the transition.

i don’t follow it especially closely, but had the impression bpf is still in the maturing phase regarding vulnerabilities. hopefully that is at least in part a sign it is being actively inspected and hardened with this purpose in mind - and i’m sure iptables still has many lurking vulns.

in summary, agree some form of transition is likely inevitable. wondering what the timeline will look like.

this is why you never swallow all that bs propaganda about abolishing cash

eBPF is powerful for sure, is it yet mature enough to replace iptables?

that is a good point, and thanks for the recommendation.

though its also good to be mindful of privacy respecting re. search terms vs privacy respecting re. data leaks. and some timing leaks are independent of the plaintext payload, ie. easily grabbed in transit.

Cool, thanks for the new details.

Just my 2c, be wary of search bar suggestions if it may leak data to 3rd party, including accidental typings etc, timing info etc

Wow, great job. Very much like your work and your guide.

Quick note, what do you mean by?

enabled search engine suggestions

I tried to check with your user-overrides.js but the file is gone?

thanks for the good info.

could you please provide a brief overview of the core concepts you have implemented in your user-overrides.js?

aaand THIS is why they want to cut funding to universities and research institutions¹

be wary of propaganda you may encounter which tries to veil this intent behind another ‘plausible’ complaint

¹ and they tend to find global warming results which authoritarians don’t like

if it wasn’t their specific field (language) its not super surprising no official claims came from them about this. would be interesting to know if they made some offhand comments about it though.

its conceivable they noticed something, but never had the time/resources to bring in appropriate experts and go through the formal process.

i personally wouldn’t be especially surprised if they had SOME form of what we might approximate as a language. whether this particular research proves it…couldn’t say

depends how its done… if it was like “we fucked up, pls don’t continue down this negative road because of our mistakes”*

that could be considered a form of pressure. and maybe not be considered colonialist…? (what do you think if they said it that way?)

there’s about a billion other ways they might pressure, and it would be colonialist.

is it safe to assume its mostly the latter?

The consensus is: yes, platforming alt-right authoritarians like Trump leads to more harm, including more people radicalized, and more people silenced by abuse they and their followers dish out on such platforms.

i could certainly see how it might be worse, because they just statistically reach fewer people. and perhaps also because it helps establish a line for what constitutes being too obnoxious, so other people will tend to moderate themselves a bit too because they know we dislike this offensive attitude.

what worries me is we’re only seeing our side of that line, where we think its nice now because the problem has “gone away” - and honestly it has been nicer lately lol.

but has it really gone away? or are we just more comfortable now because its happening behind a fence we can’t and don’t want to see past?

imo it seems a bit too early to call where all the harm is eventually going to land and take root. i imagine at this stage, although it could very well be true, calling it a consensus is pretty optimistic, unless there’s details i’ve missed?

Yes he did, in the article he talks specifically about Trump.

i read the article, imo its not yet clear whether he singled trump out or journalists steered it that way. if he has general ban policies which trump doesn’t (yet) fall under, that is an entirely different conversation than if musk is specifically unbanning trump because he wants more people like trump in the world. if i’m missing something or there’s a much more complete source out there let’s know.

The problem is not that Company X decides to ban a person or platform a person. The problem is that such a decision by Company X has such gigantic consequences. And that comes directly from the fact that Twitter is a centralized walled-garden monopoly.

Think of it this way: if any e-mail provider (even Gmail) “banned Trump”, that would be way less of an “issue”. Why? Because there are many other mail servers he can go set up an account on. So this particular e-mail provider’s decision is no longer “censorship” really, it’s “I really don’t want to do business with that toxic person”.

And that’s where we need to get to with social media. Centralization is a danger to democracy.

100% agree with everything you said about centralized walled-garden monopolies. that was part of my point, who made twitter this central power to begin with? it’s completely ridiculous.

do i want to live in a world where anyone using hate filled rhetoric like trump can reach as few people as possible? yes.

did i think banning any public figures on twitter was about as stupid as twitter having so much power in the first place? yes.

do people like trump do more harm with a live twitter account vs banning them which polarizes their followers even more which leads to more harm? i have no idea

as for musk, did he specifically personally single out trump for unbanning? if yes, that is very troubling.

or did he talk about having very few permbans and journalists asked about specific cases including trump, and musk said that case falls under the general reasons he already gave re. min permbans? if yes, we need to wait a bit longer to see where he really stands imo

when they need to they probably will.

right now who is even going to put them in the position they even need to worry about that kind of expense?

yep, and this is basically the case in alot of places now - perhaps not just stated so officially.

how can we pretend to talk about a free society, when your choices to be recognised as a citizen are apple or google?

this ^

great find! that is fascinating, and scary

Computer monitoring software is helping companies spy on their employees to pretend to measure their productivity – often without their consent

Definitely an interesting approach to this current arms race.

something i’ve wondered is why do we need to rely on such detailed methods? surely at a pixel distribution level there’s enough tells? why is that not the case?

i agree with everything you said. the clincher though i think is some of what this article talks about is a legit issue (big tech trying to takeover linux/opensource etc ¹).

the problem is the author seems to completely miss the fact that its a fucking insidious takeover attempt

¹ especially microsoft