[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago

.io is a ccTLD though and is subject to the whims of the British Indian Ocean Territory. They can, for any reason, remove domains. See what recently happened with Mali and .ml.

[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Congratulations citizen! You have been awarded with a 600 FICO score for promulgating sinophobic nonsense. If you also prove that China is the Big Evil, you can get an additional 250 FICO score.

--

I don't think you see the irony in using the dead trope of "Social Credits" when an actual credit score exists in FICO and can be used to deny you housing, loans (and therefore access to education), jobs, and more. And if you think it's just financial transactions, try looking at what companies like LexisNexis have on you that it coalesces into things like "RiskView", or how much of a profile skip tracing agencies have on everyone. Then you have the profiles built on you by several government domestic (and foreign) surveillance agencies. And you have the profiles built on you by several big tech companies. Just because there's not a single, unified, government-sponsored surveillance and consumer rating agency doesn't mean the tangible effects of such disparate systems aren't identical to what you claim happens in China (i.e., denial of services and access). It doesn't matter if it's 50 different entities controlling parts of the system if the end result is identical.

[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

I hate this saying. It's not explicit, and logical consequence isn't bidirectional, but it implies that those who do remember the past somehow won't repeat it. Which is blatantly false. Many people, even those who intimately know history, want to repeat it. Either because they think material conditions are just different enough to lead to a different result this time, or that the precise way the actions in the past was carried out was subpar and with tiny tweaks it would lead to a different result, etc. I do generally agree with the explicit statement[^1], but I strongly disagree with the implicit statement.

[^1]: And even on the explicit statement I still have reservations. Sometimes material conditions are different enough, or the precise manner in which actions are carried out are different enough that those who know nothing about the past aren't condemned to repeat it: what those who know nothing about the past do is only superficially similar to the past, and can have radically different outcomes.

[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Call that tin foil hat syndrome or whatever.

Racism. It's racism and xenophobia.

[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago

I'll just summarize my point: if you think you have educational value in your comments, that value is nil if the comment gets removed.

[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago

Search engines like DDG should really begin maintaining their own index, and they should exclude sites that use the tech from the index.

If this gets implemented, it would ruin the ability for competitor search engines (such as DDG) to exist. If Google convinces site operators to require attestation, then suddenly automated crawlers and indexers will not function. Google could say to site operators that if they wish to run ads via Google's ad network they must require attestation; then, any third-party search indexer or crawler would be blocked from those sites. Google's ad network is used on about 98.8% of all sites which have advertising, and about 49.5% of all websites.

[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago

Isn’t someone just going to fork Chromium, take out this stuff,

Yes, upstream Chromium forks will likely try to remove this functionality, but

put in something that spoofs the DRM to the sites so that adblocking still works?

This is the part that is not possible. The browser is not doing the attestation; it's a third party who serves as Attestor. All the browser does is makes the request to the attestor, and passes the attestor's results to the server you're talking to. There is no way a change in the browser could thwart this if the server you're talking to expects attestation.

[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago

ISPs coming out and bothering you cause you pirate stuff? Never heard of it.

You must have the distinct privilege of not living in the USA or several other Western countries.

I’d jump ship immediately if I got one such letter.

If you mean jump ship off that ISP, there's nothing you can do. You can go to another ISP (if there even is one in your area), who will do the exact same thing. You can jump ship entirely and not have internet, I guess.

[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago

I can't tell if they're implying that the use of the word "predicted" in the article's title is not accurate given the body of the article, which I somewhat agree with, or if they're implying that "predicted" is the wrong tense of the word considering the war hasn't started, or some other reading. That's why I asked them. I'd rather not jump to conclusions.

[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago

You can't simultaneously call Russia an authoritarian dictatorship and say that its people have the power to change the country's trajectory.

Because the only way to force change in a country, is to push it’s people to make that change.

The correct way to say this is: "the only way to force change in a country, is to push the people who can make change to make that change".

[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 year ago

However I can’t seem to turn off the telemetry at all…

Which telemetry, specifically? Anything you can't find in the standard settings menu can be found in about:config. There are plenty of articles with huge lists of settings to adjust in about:config with explanations on what different values do.

[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Is this sarcasm? You're saying if they stopped fighting back against invaders who want to take their land they...would have land? If only they'd give up their land, they'd have land? Do I have that right? I hope I'm just misreading this.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

133arc585

joined 2 years ago