chicken @ chicken @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

0

Comments

1,240

Joined

2 yr. ago

Are there actually people in the loop? Are you sure it's not all bots? It's not like they will communicate with you at all about your ban aside from template emails.

If you ever have an interest in running local LLMs you're gonna wish you got even more

It is a deliberately deceptive shitpost, most of the humor is based on the assumption the article is real.

There's no way that would work either, they can just store the full edit history and auto-curate as needed.

Do you mean the attack only works against people with a split tunnel setup?

Not quite what the article says:

When apps run on Linux there’s a setting that minimizes the effects, but even then TunnelVision can be used to exploit a side channel that can be used to de-anonymize destination traffic and perform targeted denial-of-service attacks. Network firewalls can also be configured to deny inbound and outbound traffic to and from the physical interface. This remedy is problematic for two reasons: (1) a VPN user connecting to an untrusted network has no ability to control the firewall and (2) it opens the same side channel present with the Linux mitigation.

I'm a lot more ok with many people having non internet connected dashcams than one corporation having continuous access to a giant network of cameras

It's a good one

Check out Nostr, ActivityPub alternative that does authentication separately from content, works more like that.

I don't know, but what does that even mean? Does it mean anything beyond a call for engagement, a vague imperative statement reworded as a rhetorical question? I am so sick of being asked for my attention when there's really very little to be paying attention to, or when my input is not needed or wanted.

For me the problem is that virtually all political content and discussion online is very low information. Generally no one is conveying anything I haven't already heard many times, it's mostly remixing slogans and truisms and finding different ways of expressing the same simplified opinion. Questioning that stuff or asking for nuance to be addressed gets met with aggression. The more I'm exposed to it the more I feel like my brain is rotting, definitely does not feel like I'm learning things.

Unlimited free distribution of copyrighted media is something I'm all for, but that's a really tall order in terms of political capital for getting the law changed, a few protests aren't going to do it, basically every elected official would strongly oppose it, you'd have to replace them all first.

I feel like reading statutes is unreliable because a lot of how the law works is how courts interpret the law, which can be very different from the commonsense interpretation of the letter of the law. Lacking broader context, I can't know from just this exactly what the consequences might be. Here's some parts that are possibly concerning though:

The Commission may, in its discretion, prescribe the forms of any and all accounts, records, and memoranda to be kept by carriers subject to this chapter, including the accounts, records, and memoranda of the movement of traffic

Not sure if this increases the ability of the government to spy on people through their ISPs or if that remains the same.

(a) Requirement to restrict access (1) Prohibited conduct Whoever knowingly and with knowledge of the character of the material, in interstate or foreign commerce by means of the World Wide Web, makes any communication for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors shall be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.

Some states have been experimenting with broad bans on online porn sites and requiring those sites and also social media sites to demand id from all users, maybe this provision could give a future FCC the power to apply this sort of thing to the internet nationally? Although this section already explicitly mentions the internet which is confusing if this whole thing is only recently being made relevant to the internet.

There are provisions about the FCC being able to come up with rules for the prevention of robocalls, maybe this could be generalized to prohibit some forms of automated network traffic?

Relevant Snowden quote:

Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say

I pay for vpn service anonymously even though I probably don't need to, as my main use is torrenting. I can see a remote possibility that vpn payment records at some point end up being used against pirates, even just as some kind of risk factor flagging, in the same vein as what you are saying: "If someone is paying for a vpn, surely they're doing something bad?" In countries that really want to crack down on speech and human rights, vpns get banned outright to varying success, and if you can't pay anonymously in that situation you're pretty screwed, this hurts those people.

In general I think everyone should be trying for some level of actual privacy online as a matter of principle, just because of how everyone being fully tracked and observed puts way too much power in the hands of those watching.

The current administration and its agencies have clear contempt for any sort of crypto privacy they have shown in a variety of ways. The Tornado Cash sanction and criminal charges, recent Bitcoin mixer criminal charges, the proposed rule putting a "Primary Money Laundering Concern" black mark on people seeking crypto privacy in virtually any way... if it's possible to still purchase online services privately after this, I'm sure they will go on to take further measures to try to close the "loophole". They don't want anyone doing things without being able to monitor them.

It’s worth mentioning that obscenity laws apply whether Net Neutrality is a thing or not

Couldn't this reclassification affect that sort of thing in a jurisdiction sense though? Again, I like net neutrality, mostly because the idea of something like the standard internet option being Facebook only is terrifying, but it sounds like a big part of this is reclassifying ISPs to be subject to rules made by the FCC. I'd really rather it be a law passed by congress, and I worry about how federal agencies might abuse their powers over the internet when those powers are expanded in general. I'm not really sure how much it generally expands their authority over the internet, but it seems like it might.

I think net neutrality is a good thing, but could this reclassification mean that the FCC will have increased authority to police content online? There has been a lot of worrying activity around that lately in general, and the FCC has a history of imposing censorship on traditional media.

I feel like wild animals do a lot of stuff for fun and the survival is just a bonus.

Local stable diffusion takes more effort to get good results, I think that is the main reason.

Yeah but 95% of people will be too lazy to do that and this will probably be enough to avert most brigading that might happen. I think this is about ad-hoc harassment campaigns more than doxxing which evokes more organized and focused harassment campaigns.