[HN Gopher] The Wayforward Machine
___________________________________________________________________
The Wayforward Machine
Author : watchdogtimer
Score : 238 points
Date : 2021-10-02 12:35 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (wayforward.archive.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (wayforward.archive.org)
| ohmnfgsx wrote:
| "Please make sure you have all privacy settings and firewalls
| disabled" - we don't need to travel to 2046 for this, this has
| been practiced by google and cloudflare for years.
| smoyer wrote:
| This is a great not-so-subtle look at the direction we're heading
| - the only thing that was missed is continuously and invisibly
| reloading the page so that I can't use my browser history to get
| back to HN.
| ModernMech wrote:
| I thought this was going to be a deep learning AI that took the
| history of a website like Apple.com, and tried to predict what it
| would look like in the future. Like, would it figure out to put
| out an iPhone 14 announcement right around when Apple would
| releases such a thing? And would it have new features, like being
| thinner and having a longer battery than predecessors? Would be
| pretty neat.
| reflexe wrote:
| Ok. That was anticlimactic
|
| (And in general, the web archive is a bit hypothetical since
| downloading saved websites is disallowed according to their tos)
| kevingadd wrote:
| It's not as if they invented copyright law. Even if their ToS
| didn't say that it would still effectively be disallowed
| reflexe wrote:
| But it is not their content. Their whole goal is to save
| other people's content. But then they won't allow 9ther
| people to download this content.
| bilater wrote:
| lol
| jrootabega wrote:
| I can't get Twisted Eye to install, anyone have any luck?
| Igelau wrote:
| Wow. That was a really long wait for some really lame popups.
| quocanh wrote:
| You can get around the paywall with incognito. Pretty lax
| security here.
| cabaalis wrote:
| This is a lot of effort to express opposition to repealing
| section 230. Their timeline starts with that event.
| 0x456 wrote:
| This seems very likely extrapolating from current trends.
| [deleted]
| lawwantsin17 wrote:
| yay! in the future we figured out how to sue Google and Facebook
| out of existence. I love the future.
| themanmaran wrote:
| - Put in URL
|
| - It loads for a bit, then shows some fake ads.
|
| - "Imagine a future without access to knowledge..."
|
| And then some blurbs on campaigning for 'Open access to
| knowledge'.
| einpoklum wrote:
| If you type in www.google.com, it says "Loading the internet of
| the future", and in the background there's a Google 404 page.
|
| Conclusion: In the future, Google will have some service outage
| :-P
|
| ----
|
| If you type in "news.ycombinator.com", you get a recent HN main
| page snapshot in the background while "loading the internet of
| the future". Then you get prompted to prove that you are over
| 18... but really, who would be dumb enough to upload their
| driver's license to some untrusted website for this purpose?
|
| Conclusion: In the future, 18-year-olds will be less intelligent
| than they are today (or I have an overly high expectation of
| people's intelligence).
| sva_ wrote:
| In Germany, a law was proposed some time ago that would require
| websites with "adult content" to do a biometric age
| verification. They even discussed forcing OS developers to
| implement this on OS level.
| 0xdeadb00f wrote:
| > who would be dumb enough to upload their driver's license to
| some untrusted website ...
|
| Facebook has blocked an account of mine before, requesting
| government issued photo ID. I never gave any, so my account is
| now deactivated. But I suspect many people do cave so they can
| get access to Facebook again.
|
| And, if, in the future it's a common requirement, then sure,
| people would do it, since it's the only way to use useful(or
| fun, or work-related) websites.
|
| I what about China's system - Since the government ID is tied
| to almost everything, I'm sure it's common over there to give
| out your government ID to get access to websites. (I don't know
| any of that for sure - I don't live there).
| einpoklum wrote:
| > Facebook
|
| You got me there I guess... I mean, I could suggest not using
| Facebook, but I suppose that's not very realistic.
|
| Still, Facebook and the WayforwardMachine aren't of the same
| caliber.
| raldi wrote:
| Site's overloaded. Anyone got a screenshot?
| WallyFunk wrote:
| Ughh how ironic:
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20210930161453/https://wayforwar...
| raldi wrote:
| I can get that far; the site isn't responding beyond the
| point in that capture.
| codetrotter wrote:
| Came across this too the other day. For a moment I was hoping
| that they'd trained some machine learning algorithm on the past
| evolution of the sites in their archive in order to extrapolate
| how sites may change in the future, and that they'd have thrown
| in some futuristic design elements in the mix.
|
| But the way that this thing works is pretty satisfying too. In
| terms of conveying a message about our future I mean.
| teawrecks wrote:
| That's a way more interesting idea. As it is it feels like a
| forward from grandma from 2002.
| tjpnz wrote:
| I went in expecting Devs.
| rdiddly wrote:
| Yeah I thought it was going to be that too. They certainly have
| the data for it. Although that model would probably predict
| that almost every site just disappears in its future. Speaking
| of which, to imagine a world where information is inaccessible,
| I don't need to imagine a dystopian authoritarian future, just
| the shitty haphazard one we have now, where things just
| disappear from the internet - which was the original battle
| archive.org was fighting.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Every URL eventually decays to pointing to a parked domain
| loaded with ads.
|
| Is that a theorem with name to it attached already? I feel it
| should be.
| ccvannorman wrote:
| imagining Google.com pointing to a parked domain with junk
| search results in 2065 brings a smile to my face.
| kordlessagain wrote:
| I like the idea of having a model look at a page and then
| rework the look and style to be simple and free of ads or
| JavaScript.
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| reader mode
| mountainriver wrote:
| This is a great idea
| nefitty wrote:
| I hoped it was something that fanciful, but didn't expect it.
|
| Your comment brought to kind something. I wonder if GPT3 et al
| could be used to invent or predict futures. I know AI is being
| used to work on domains in science and having some success. It
| seems like those spaces have rules that can be followed to make
| new discoveries. Could we set an AI on certain
| social/economic/technological simulations and have it spit out
| various possible outcomes?
|
| One sort of simulation that comes to mind is the Transition
| Integrity Project. Could an AI have arrived at realistic
| conclusions given the right rules?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_Integrity_Project
| oakfr wrote:
| GPT3 and other deep models cannot predict the future. They
| can only generate alternative presents.
| danuker wrote:
| Why not? It is trained to guess the next word, and giving
| it a few lines of dialogue makes it continue the
| conversation.
|
| The only reason would be hitting the hardcoded input length
| limit.
| everyone wrote:
| I just get "loading" Is it meant to be a commentary that future
| websites will have so much javascript they will take an infinite
| time to load?
| prvc wrote:
| Wait, are we expected to trust the chat popup that refers to us
| as "comrade"?
| mkr-hn wrote:
| The Internet Archive is collective action...in action. Why
| would they use any other word? It's an example of people
| successfully working together for a common goal.
| liftm wrote:
| I get called "friend" now. You broke it!
|
| I find the fact that it is a fake chat pop-up a lot more
| untrustworthy.
| Spivak wrote:
| Wild! I didn't think anything of it since in my social circle
| being ironically not-ironically communist is totally normal.
| Using lingo like "comrade" or more extremely stuff like "Daddy
| Stalin" is just counterreactionary and an attempt to "own the
| label" when people accuse you of being a communist or socialist
| for wanting the mildest of progressive policies.
|
| Edit: Not sure why the downvotes for what is basically a
| candid, "hey if you're confused about the wording it's because
| it's a very specific political activism shibboleth."
| mkr-hn wrote:
| The Chinese equivalent to comrade also fills the role queer
| does in modern English in Hong Kong.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongzhi_(term)#Usage_in_contem.
| ..
| Spivak wrote:
| That's really cool, I love it!
| acheron wrote:
| I would guess the downvotes are because talking about how you
| and your friends "ironically" praise one of the worst mass
| murderers in history is not as cute as you apparently think
| it is.
| Spivak wrote:
| It's not really meant to be cute exactly, it's more meant
| to take away the power of silencing tactics like, "oh so
| you're a communist then?" by leaning into it and responding
| with absurdity. Nobody who calls you a socialist like that
| is trying to have a rational reasoned argument -- they're
| trying to put you on the defensive and shut down your
| argument using some mouth sounds they've memorized. But the
| trick and why these silencing tactics work is because if
| you try to take the high road and engage with them
| intellectually at all you lose. You spend all your energy
| on the defensive trying to explain why that's so wrong it's
| not even funny and it looks like they win because nobody is
| paying any attention after the snappy communist quip.
|
| But if you lean into it and say something like "yeah
| obviously, I want that big Mao Zedong" observers know that
| you're being absurd but the accusation just rolls off and
| now you control the direction of the argument.
|
| This is basically how to publicly engage with people who
| argue in bad faith 101.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| What's wrong with "comrade" ?
| hagbard_c wrote:
| With the word itself? Nothing, really. With the ideology
| which traditionally uses it? Plenty. The same goes for that
| black fist they're using, in itself it is but an image but it
| happens to be the image which has been used and continues to
| be used by the same ideology which is known for using the
| word 'comrade'.
|
| The better question to ask is what went wrong in the
| education departments which did not only fail to teach the
| lessons of failed Marxism-inspired ideologies but actively
| promotes them, leading to a remarkable resurgence of what was
| written of as terminally wounded after the fall of the Soviet
| Union - socialism and communism. They failed to teach history
| of communism and socialism in its many guises, the bloody
| trail it has left behind and continues to produce and the
| untold number of lives lost to these ideologies. Instead,
| they just hitched a ride on the revolutionary bandwagon which
| got started in 1968, promoting the virtues of yet another
| Marxism-inspired ideology - critical theory. They managed to
| lower the academic standards, especially among those groups
| in society who they claim to want to protect. Instead of
| teaching students the basic tenets of their disciplines they
| taught them the ever-changing strictures of their ideologies.
|
| What happened is that a student of this system ended up
| working for the Internet Archive and thought the symbolism
| employed by Stalin and Mao would be just the thing to use to
| promote the essence of western liberalism: freedom of thought
| and freedom of expression. She probably never realised the
| contradiction between what she thought this symbolism
| represents versus what is has represented in the past.
| yesenadam wrote:
| > a remarkable resurgence of what was written of as
| terminally wounded after the fall of the Soviet Union -
| socialism and communism
|
| Genuine question - could you tell me more about this
| "remarkable resurgence"? What are you referring to here?
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| Wow you sure are reading a lot into a word which is
| otherwise correctly employed.
| hagbard_c wrote:
| Nope, I just realise how it came to be that people think
| these symbols represent 'good intentions' while in
| reality they should b relegated to the history books
| right next to those employed by their ideological cousins
| of Fascism and National Socialism. Would you react in the
| same way if they had used a fasces [1] instead of a
| clutched fist? The term comrade was employed by both
| National Socialists (the 'Horst Wessel' song starts with
| 'Comrades, the voices...') and Fascism so it has a rich
| history in oppressive ideologies.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_symbolism
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| >Would you react in the same way if they had used a
| fasces [1] instead of a clutched fist?
|
| Oddly enough, the fasces had been minted onto the Mercury
| dime (the dime preceding the current Rooseveltian dime)
| and is a feature of several statues in the Capitol,
| Lincoln and Washington among them. If Edward Bernays is
| to be believed, symbols take the meaning people are
| convinced they have. And there's no better proof than
| 4chan's (particularly /pol/'s) sense of irony/humor with
| regards to the OK hand sign.
| NineStarPoint wrote:
| I think it's a completely fair assessment to view the
| word that way. Dog-whistles aren't just a thing neo-
| Nazi's use, any unpopular political groups has words they
| use to indicate what their true side is to others of the
| cause. The only point against comrade in that light is
| that it's so heavily tied to communism in the collective
| consciousness that it might be too obvious.
|
| That said, how negatively we should view that particular
| dog whistle is a separate conversation.
| wutbrodo wrote:
| > What happened is that a student of this system ended up
| working for the Internet Archive and thought the symbolism
| employed by Stalin and Mao would be just the thing to use
| to promote the essence of western liberalism
|
| A lot of usage of the word is tongue-in-cheek. This seems
| entirely plausible to me
| ineedasername wrote:
| that word has some loaded baggage with it in the US. It's
| rarely used outside the context of it being coopted by the
| communist movement-- at least in the US. Considering the
| multiple "red scares" in the US, the Palmer raids, etc... 100
| years of history have linked the connotation in US usage as a
| reference to supporters of communism, stemming from a time
| when that support was also fairly closely linked with a
| Soviet Union very belligerent towards the US. Although it has
| been used more generically in the communist political scene
| without a linkage to (and _with_ a criticism of) Soviet-style
| communism.
|
| I highly doubt archive.org intended that association, it
| merely explains why a person would view it as an odd choice
| if words.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| Not just in the US. I wouldn't recommend using it in a non-
| ironic manner in the countries that experienced Soviet
| occupation either.
| Multiplayer wrote:
| Bitcoin fixes this.
|
| Few understand this.
| wackget wrote:
| Archive.org - including the Wayback Machine - is already blocked
| by many major UK ISPs and has been for many years:
| https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/internet-archive-...
|
| Not sure if that's ironic or not, in light of the warnings on
| "The Wayforward Machine" page.
| unityByFreedom wrote:
| That's surprising, thanks for mentioning it.
| jacques609 wrote:
| > HTTP Version Not Supported > Your browser is using HTTP version
| HTTP/1.1. We only support version 2.0 or newer.
|
| The future runs on HTTP/1.1?
| drummer wrote:
| This is brilliant.
| bjowen wrote:
| Cute. There is already a News Corp doing monopoly stuff and
| regulatory capture, so that doesn't seem too far fetched.
| [deleted]
| mortenjorck wrote:
| I love the Internet Archive, but they're fighting the last war
| here. There will never be any scary, Orwellian ministry of truth
| in our timeline, because there's no need for one when all the
| power is concentrated in a few oligopolistic platform providers
| whose risk appetite is such that deplatforming is the only
| acceptable measure when that appetite is exceeded.
|
| Furthermore, the calls (for censorship) are coming from inside
| the house at this point. In a rush to combat genuine issues like
| health misinformation, even organizations like the ACLU have come
| to support platforms clamping down on speech - and certainly they
| have a point; these are private companies, not the government.
|
| I don't have any solutions to this, but the future to worry about
| is not what's dramatized here. It's something much tidier, less
| threatening, and more insidious.
| smsm42 wrote:
| In other words, there is a ministry of truth, only it evolved
| to take a form which doesn't scare most of us - in fact, for
| most of the people not going specifically to look for it, it's
| completely imperceptible.
|
| > In a rush to combat genuine issues like health misinformation
|
| And this is how you learned to love the Big Brother.
| phreeza wrote:
| Never is a long time, and the US is not the only country in the
| world.
| tim333 wrote:
| China has a somewhat ministry like building
| https://archive.ph/ivtGK where "news reporting about topics
| which are sensitive to the CCP is distorted and often used as
| a weapon against the party's perceived enemies" according to
| Wikipedia.
| est31 wrote:
| It is not, but US run services dominate in much of the
| western world, so western internet users have to abide by US
| rules.
| cube00 wrote:
| "Australia gave police power to compel sysadmins into
| assisting account takeovers - so they plan to use it" https:/
| /www.theregister.com/2021/09/14/identify_and_disrupt_...
| tchalla wrote:
| It's surprising how many US citizens I meet throughout the
| world whose talking points are filled worth US solipsism. A
| recent example was a few days ago when, I had a discussion
| with a Texas "communist" who wanted to butt heads against the
| police force in a European city due to police brutality. I
| asked the person if he had checked up on police brutality
| cases in the city and he hadn't. I'm amazed at their self
| confidence and world view.
| mynegation wrote:
| I was in total disbelief when I found out that majority of
| British police force does not even carry a weapon. I am now
| watching British police drama "Line of Duty" and they show
| their "SWAT" outings and the amount of procedure around
| this is insane. The cherry on top is how they chase an
| extremely dangerous suspect in a Mercedes van. A van! Such
| a stark contrast with militarized SWAT teams in North
| America, their weapons, tactics, and vehicles.
| redwall_hp wrote:
| Yep. And while in the US we have coward cops who shoot
| people because they're "afraid," the UK has officers like
| the guy who charged multiple knife-wielding assailants
| with only a baton, while the armed response was en route.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/uk-
| news/2017/jun/28/policeman-fo...
|
| I thought that was a stark contrast at the time, and that
| was before the current wave of protests over police
| violence in the US...
| Jenk wrote:
| Not only that but the police have refused to carry
| weapons multiple times here. Recent governments have
| attempted to approach the subject (with rumours of
| lobbying from large arms companies) but every time it's
| been taken to the police they have rejected the idea.
| iammisc wrote:
| > and certainly they have a point; these are private companies,
| not the government.
|
| No they do not. This 'argument' comes about because everyone's
| forgotten about _why_ it is that we don 't want government to
| infringe upon certain rights. It's not because governments have
| been granted some particular characterization by God, it's
| because government's are powerful, centralized organizations,
| with power most people, or small grassroots groups of people,
| cannot achieve.
|
| In that sense, most corporations of today are way more powerful
| than governments of the past. Thus, they ought to be treated
| the same way, and we ought to demand the same rights from them
| as the government.
|
| Just because you fill out articles of incorporation, doesn't
| make you suddenly immune to respecting individual rights.
| throwawaycities wrote:
| > This 'argument' comes about because everyone's forgotten
| about why it is that we don't want government to infringe
| upon certain rights.
|
| I think the argument comes about because it's first amendment
| case law with plenty of Supreme Court opinions.
|
| What's ignored is the flip side, that even governments
| (meaning federal, state, county, city, etc...) can regulate
| speech.
|
| But let's pretend that the case law was different and it were
| somehow unconstitutional for businesses to make rules that
| restricted your speech. I have never heard a proposed legal
| framework for how that might work.
|
| If you have a brick and mortar and ask me to wear a mask,
| then fuck you and your rules I'm entitled to go into your
| store without a mask? And yes, wearing a mask or not is
| speech. Or what if I want to come to your store with a
| bullhorn and preach, you can't remove me? Are your store
| hours a violation of my speech because I want to appear and
| protest in your store in the middle of the night when you are
| closed? These are not extreme examples, there are cases with
| similar facts which SCOTUS has dealt with when it is
| government and not private business with similar rules. Is
| Joe Rogan violating my free speech because I can't go on his
| podcast when I want? If you have a website, can I sue you for
| not hosting my content on your website when/where I want? It
| just becomes a exercise in saying "I know it when I see it"
| and Twitter can't moderate user content on its own platform
| but the law will not be applied equally to all businesses.
| The aim of the law should be to remove those kinds of
| discretionary standards in favor of plain letter law with
| bright line rules.
| mdavidn wrote:
| I don't know about all that, but clearly there is a
| difference between a business that sells clothes and a
| business that has imposed itself as a middleman in private
| social interactions between friends and family.
| eclipxe wrote:
| Families are free to choose to not use the middleman.
| fsflover wrote:
| Did you hear about network effect?
| amimrroboto wrote:
| It's okay to go protest on the street.
|
| It's not okay to clone yourself thousands of times and
| generate constant new protest speeches.
|
| Misinformation works faster and different online vs the real
| world. I'm not against all opinions and viewpoints being
| taken away, that's obviously a scary route. But clear
| misinformation has dangerous impacts at the speed it's
| produced, shared, and consumed.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| >clear misinformation
|
| You say that like such a thing is clearly defined.
|
| Does it depend on intent? If I say something that you
| consider to be incorrect but I understand it to be correct
| is that misinformation? Or do I need to know it's false? If
| the former we need an arbiter of what is true, which is not
| a trivial thing. If the latter we need an arbiter of what
| _i believe_ which is basically a good chunk of what the
| legal system does.
|
| Does it have to be demonstrably harmful? What is the
| threshold of harm? There are plenty of things that might be
| wrong and minimally harmful to say, but some that are more
| medium level harmful. If it doesn't have to be demonstrably
| harmful then what you've just done is literally just
| oppressing someone you disagree with for no real reason.
|
| There is a reason that we tilt toward freedom of speech
| with governments. Doing otherwise doesn't scale and tends
| to devolve into people in power censoring opinions and
| topics they don't like.
| TrispusAttucks wrote:
| Agreed.
|
| Also "truth" isn't exactly static. Just look at the
| change in the "science" of mask best practices; or the
| Hunter laptop that has now been verified.
|
| How do we handle that?
|
| Do we _compensate_ those that were punished prematurely
| (when they turned out to be right)?
|
| Do we _punish_ platforms that censored people? (when
| people turned out to be right)?
|
| The issue right now is that the platforms do not have the
| same standards as the people using them. The incentive is
| just to censor content that isn't backed by power or
| money.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| This is the problem for arguing for free speech. You get
| lumped in with loonies. I will gladly defend your right
| to be misinformed on the internet, though.
| iammisc wrote:
| Have you considered joining the Taliban? They too are very
| interested in banning clear misinformation.
| Zanni wrote:
| No, mortenjorck had it right. There is a clear distinction
| between government and private enterprise--governments have
| the force of law to back them up. That's the critical threat.
| Yes, it's a problem if power is centralized in organizations,
| but you always have the option to walk away from Facebook,
| Twitter, etc., or even start a competitor. There's a huge
| difference between "Facebook jail" and actual jail.
| neutronicus wrote:
| If you consider the first amendment a mistake, you won't want
| to replicate it in the quasi-governmental institutions of the
| future
| ViViDboarder wrote:
| > In that sense, most corporations of today are way more
| powerful than governments of the past. Thus, they ought to be
| treated the same way, and we ought to demand the same rights
| from them as the government.
|
| This is one of the main reasons antitrust law was created.
| They ought not to be treated the same as government, they
| ought to be broken up and not allowed to be as powerful as
| government.
| adolph wrote:
| The power differential between govt and industry doesn't
| seem to address the root issue, which is the power
| differential between individual humans and industry and/or
| govt.
| ViViDboarder wrote:
| If you imagine individuals at less power than government
| and industry today, then you take industry and cut their
| power in half, their power now sits closer to that of
| individuals than it did before.
| winstonewert wrote:
| That depends. What happens to the industry power? Does it
| go back to individuals or does it accrue to the
| government?
| hairofadog wrote:
| I agree. It's strange to me that a common reaction to the
| premise that _Facebook is more powerful than government_ is
| to say, "welp, guess we need to codify our free speech
| rights within our new Facebook government" rather than
| "Facebook can't be allowed to be that powerful."
| krapp wrote:
| Because what many people making that argument want is for
| Facebook (et al.) to remain as powerful as they are, but
| be compelled by law to use that power to publish speech
| against their will.
| iammisc wrote:
| Well I agree with you, but considering the corporate
| state merger we are seeing today (we now know elected can
| officials directly instructed Facebook as to whose
| accounts to ban), we have to do some real politik.
|
| I am 100% behind any attempt to break up Facebook and
| Google, but given that they are de facto the government
| (just see how many ex googlers have high bureaucratic
| office), this seems as likely as the feds voting to
| reduce their influence.
| matt123456789 wrote:
| You're missing the point. Or perhaps, the messaging from this
| page on the Internet Archive is missing the point. The Archive
| saves and serves the content even after the deplatforming has
| occurred, regardless of whether the removal occurred due to a
| governmental thoughtcrime department or an oligopolistic
| private company. The fact that a private company (or companies)
| can do so in the first place with such great impact is an
| opportunity for disruption. The fact that is has already
| occurred is an opportunity for libraries like the Internet
| Archive.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _The fact that a private company (or companies) can do so
| in the first place with such great impact is an opportunity
| for disruption. The fact that is has already occurred is an
| opportunity for libraries like the Internet Archive._
|
| No, it isn't. What IA stores long-term is relevant to future
| generations, less so to us now. What matters for us is that
| you can censor anything on IA, retroactively, by updating
| robots.txt.
|
| IA won't be able to capitalize on this opportunity for
| disruption until copyright law gets completely overhauled. I
| don't see this happening soon, as powers that be - both
| public and private - are all aligned in their interest to
| make IP protection even stronger.
| a1369209993 wrote:
| > that you can censor anything on IA, retroactively, by
| updating robots.txt.
|
| IA _claims_ to have fixed that, and it 's been a couple
| years since I've _caught_ them respecting robots.txt. If
| you have examples of them respecting robots.txt more recent
| than, say, 2018... citation please? This _was_ a serious
| problem _in the past_ , but I had hoped (and believed) it
| was no longer a thing.
|
| (I'm deliberately avoiding saying "They don't do that
| anymore.", since it's a low-probability, high-impact event,
| and I may just not have encountered it, but complying with
| robots.txt would be a really vile thing for a supposed
| library to do.)
| alisonkisk wrote:
| Archvial libraries have rights under copyright law.
| adolph wrote:
| ACLU should be granted copyright to all the badthink so they
| can DCMA places like TIA. There's probably a bunch of
| president tweets on there causing indirection right now.
| colechristensen wrote:
| > calls (for censorship) are coming from inside the house at
| this point
|
| They would in any orwellian society, the denial is in the
| assumption that people aligned with you are the "good guys",
| when it turns out the people who seemed to be for a free and
| open society will turn to thought control whenever it's "on
| their side".
| patrakov wrote:
| This is a very US-centric point of view.
| echelon wrote:
| What many of us in the US have yet to realize is that while
| our country was front and center in the 90's and 00's due to
| our explosive tech sector, the genie has left the bottle.
|
| Every country is now growing domestic talent, earning venture
| dollars, and growing capabilities to match or exceed.
| Fintech, logistics, social media, game and film production
| studios, you name it.
|
| The US only has 330M people. The world has a whole lot more
| talent.
| noduerme wrote:
| Deplatforming isn't taking away the right to free speech...
| it's taking away the privilege of using someone else's
| megaphone to be heard.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Maybe this could be called "The move to PRC machine" since blocks
| by the GFW are already a thing.
| JesusRobotics wrote:
| Can someone please tell me about blobcity cloud?
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| Does not look significantly more intrusive than the Internet in
| 2021.
| agumonkey wrote:
| between this trend and the gemini opposite, I sense some overall
| negative sentiment around the webs.
| cube00 wrote:
| Given it's working on generic popups alone with no connection to
| the URL provided, it seems unnecessary to ask the user to enter a
| URL at all for the sake of a blurred background image.
|
| You'd get a greater impact if you presented a search engine front
| page with some suggested "trending" search terms then show how
| they can be misconstrued and get you put onto the relevant
| thought crime fixated persons list while showing the user
| "filtered" and "approved" results from the central bureaucracy. A
| search engine with its 1st results page only listing .gov TLDs
| should get a few people thinking.
| sanketsarang wrote:
| This is very strange. Just tried it, and I got a message flashed
| on the screen supposedly from the _Ministry of Truth_.
| This site contains information that is currently classified as
| Thought Crime in your region. If you are the owner of this
| site, please contact your local Ministry of Truth at your
| earliest convenience.
|
| I am the owner! And I believe _currently = 2046_? This is
| hilarious, so contact now or in 2046?
|
| Website: https://blobcity.com
| RavlaAlvar wrote:
| This will literally happens if you try to open some site with
| the in-app browser in WeChat.
| sanketsarang wrote:
| Yeah, but that is not what I did. I tried on Safari on Mac.
| sysihyk wrote:
| Clenched fist? Seriously? I'd better buy shares in these scary
| "fact copyrighting corporations"
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| I did not expect that the search for XSLT would be behind the
| content truth gateway.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-02 23:00 UTC)