[HN Gopher] DNS over Wikipedia ___________________________________________________________________ DNS over Wikipedia Author : pyinstallwoes Score : 307 points Date : 2022-12-02 14:25 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (github.com) (TXT) w3m dump (github.com) | alpos wrote: | What are you going to do if people start to trust this and then | someone edits the wiki sources to redirect people to phishing | sites mocked up to look real? | lxgr wrote: | This is neat, but I expected something completely different from | the name. I already had my hopes up for doing VPN/IP over DNS | over Wikipedia. | | Frustratingly, beyond not actually offering that (which is | entirely reasonable), it does not even seem to be using DNS for | the implementation of what it does. | nashashmi wrote: | DNS is a good name to help understand what it does but I am | perturbed at the misappropriation. If it ramifies to calling | everything DNS, search for real dns services will be cluttered | with irrelevant results. | | This a redirect to the right domain. It is not an IP address | lookup. This could have just as well been an "I feel lucky" | search box using Wikipedia as the source. Or a Duck !bang. | billpg wrote: | Is it actually DNS, or is there a custom name-to-IP lookup | process going on? | | Also, am I just needlessly splitting hairs? | Group_B wrote: | It's not actually DNS | matt_heimer wrote: | Its host aliasing | andyp-kw wrote: | Wikipedia is acting as a system for domain name retrieval. | Karellen wrote: | Right, but DNS doesn't retrieve domain names. It uses domain | names to retrieve other information. | | In DNS, domain names are the _keys_. In this system, domain | names are the _values_. | zarzavat wrote: | Allow me to introduce you to CNAME records. | | Sure it's a very _narrow_ form of DNS... | TOGoS wrote: | > Also, am I just needlessly splitting hairs? | | Since the linked README doesn't even mention "IP", I suspect | the author misunderstands what "DNS" is about, and this is | actually a search tool, and the headline is bad. | pushedx wrote: | Many record types contain hostnames as values. So many that | it isn't even worth listing all of them here. | Joker_vD wrote: | DNS is for associating various information with domain names, | and looking that information up. Yes, the most popular | information to associate with a domain name is IPv4- and | IPv6-addresses via A and AAAA fields; but CNAME records exist | as well, you know. | notpushkin wrote: | This is not even CNAME, more like a Redirect header in DNS | (if this was actually a thing, that is). | | Still, this is arguably _a domain name system_ , just one | that isn't compatible with the DNS as we know it. | OJFord wrote: | It's not 'actually' DNS, no, but it's sort of like CNAME | redirection, except Wikipedia's the authority instead of the | (first) domain name. | shp0ngle wrote: | 8kun and kiwifarms are both censored on wikipedia. | | Maybe that's a good thing. But let's not pretend it's less | censored than google! | throwoutway wrote: | > Instead of googling for the site, I google for the site's | Wikipedia article ("schihub wiki") which usually has an up-to- | date link to the site in the sidebar, whereas Google is forced to | censor their results. | | In the video, it doesn't show this. It shows going to the | scihub.idk domain. And then a redirect happens. So does this tool | just host a local a domain resolver (and HTTP redirect server) | for all .idk domains that does a wiki search and then responds | with a HTTP redirect? | trynewideas wrote: | The comment is context for what inspired the tool. The | functionality is about 40 lines of pretty readable Rust: | https://github.com/aaronjanse/dns-over-wikipedia/blob/master... | | 1. Make a Wikipedia search API request for the .idk domain, | using the name as the article name. | | 2. Retrieve the rendered page contents if found. | | 3. Find the first Wikipedia infobox table on the page. | | 4. Extract the first "URL" or "Website" entry in that infobox. | | 5. Return the entry's value, if it's a link. | | All this runs in a nickel.rs server on 127.0.0.1:80, which | routes the requests as permanent redirects to the destination. | Using dnsmasq,[1] if it's an .idk domain, it routes the request | through the above Wikipedia resolver. | | 1: https://github.com/aaronjanse/dns-over- | wikipedia/tree/master... | derhuerst wrote: | The extension could also use Wikidata [1] entries - which | (AFAIK almost always) hold the data that is displayed in | Wikipedia article's infobox - because then it wouldn't have | to resort to parsing HTML. | | Specifically, Wikidata has a "official website" property [2] | that seems to be used. If there are multiple extensions, like | in Sci-Hub's case [3], it could pick one based on user | preferences. | | [1] https://www.wikidata.org/ [2] | https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P856 [3] | https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q21980377 | ilyt wrote: | Please don't abuse public good infrastructure | thepangolino wrote: | How's that abusing public infrastructure? | | 1. Wikipedia is a private entity. | | 2. It is very well funded. | | 3. That extension probably uses less resources than someone | loading an entire webpage with all associated media just to | look up a url. | Somatochlora wrote: | In what way is this abuse? | GNOMES wrote: | Depending if this became "popular", could overload them with | traffic. | | I presume this is a fun test project though, so I doubt it | would cause much harm, but it could be there. | rippercushions wrote: | It's hitting the Wikipedia API, which I can assure you is | used to seeing a lot worse. | Joker_vD wrote: | Overload wikipedia with traffic? As opposed to manually | opening a Wikipedia page and copypasting the URL from it? | Thorentis wrote: | This isn't DNS (resolving IPs to FQDNs) as much as resolving DNS | prefixes to their current suffixes. | | As others have pointed out, Wikipedia is starting to censor | results just like Google. Maybe it would be better for this | extension to pivot into providing their own service that performs | this task. | gumby wrote: | This is actually better than the title suggests. | | I thought it might be something like automated edits to Wikipedia | talk pages as a database or cache, which would be abusive. | | But actually it's using Wikipedia entries as a smart name search. | This is read-only and a clever and legit use of the WP. If the | browsers allowed the use of spaces in the domain name portion | URLs it would be even more useful, but it's probably better that | they don't (out of spec for TLDs) | pyinstallwoes wrote: | Exactly. Almost gives credence to the idea of a well-behaved | decentralized peer-to-peer network. | cuttysnark wrote: | On the other hand, Wikipedia pages seemingly get "vandalized" | all the time and sometimes aren't corrected immediately. | | Doesn't this create a situation where a bad actor could change | the Wikipedia page for a `semi-popular-brand.com` url listing | to something bad? Anyone who used `semi-popular-brand.idk` in | that timeframe would land in the bad page. Perhaps I'm | misunderstanding. | gumby wrote: | This is possible with the DNS already which is why there have | been various efforts to try to harden the protocol, to | varying effect so far. | MivLives wrote: | Sure but that requires knowledge of DNS, and a bad edit on | wikipedia is much more accessible. | imiric wrote: | Are you saying it's not a good idea to rely on domain lookup | from a public wiki? | | I think you might be onto something... | 6chars wrote: | Maybe an enhancement would be to have it look at the edit | history and use the most recent URL that has remained on the | page for at least X hours/days | jmbwell wrote: | This reminds me of the old "AOL Keywords" system in its later | stages, when it was just a shortcode for a web site. | camhart wrote: | What's the use case? Or just a fun programming task? | | Wouldn't this hammer wikipedia unnecessarily? DNS are very quick, | lightweight requests. | michaelt wrote: | If you want to visit a site like 'The Pirate Bay' or 'Sci-Hub' | by name, Wikipedia provides the URL, whereas google doesn't. | deelowe wrote: | Use cases are given on the github page. It's useful for sites | that aren't indexed by Google and for avoiding spam. | davrosthedalek wrote: | This is not doing DNS. This is "domain name autocomplete". | Joker_vD wrote: | It's using Wikipedia as a provider for CNAME records. Does it | count as DNS? | fundad wrote: | No because using this also requires DNS | amadeuspagel wrote: | I thought the chrome extension didn't work at first, but you have | to type "https://scihub.idk" rather then just "scihub.idk", which | leads to a google search. | Joker_vD wrote: | I think you can also do "scihub.idk/", the trailing slash | forces Chrome to treat it as an URL. | [deleted] | some_random wrote: | I love this so much, although it sucks that this is actually | useful. | | ITT: people who didn't actually read what the project does | mmahemoff wrote: | If the point is to get to the site faster, why is the TLD "idk"? | Couldn't it be 1 letter or at least the same three letters? | | On a separate note, someone could actually make a website do this | without any extension. It would need to use wikipedia dumps and | has the advantage it can't be suddenly edited by a malicious | actor. | priteau wrote: | I assume idk means I don't know. As in, get me to this website | for which I don't know the domain name. | aew4ytasghe5 wrote: | > On a separate note, someone could actually make a website do | this without any extension. It would need to use wikipedia | dumps and has the advantage it can't be suddenly edited by a | malicious actor. | | Why would we trust "a website" more than random wikipedia edits | to provide correct or up-to-date data? | | The purpose of this app is to get the _current_ url of those | sites, which keeps changing url semi-frequently, so a offline | copy of wikipedia would not work. | Kiboneu wrote: | It redirects to URL entries in the infobox (present in many wiki | pages) associated with the body of your entered URL (ending with | '.idk'). | | What it does not do is prevent anyone from temporarily editing | the associated wikipedia page and phishing you into an attacker- | controlled website. | corytheboyd wrote: | I feel like that is an acceptable risk for something called | "DNS over Wikipedia". | cxr wrote: | Not sure when this project first began exactly, but the Show HN | for it is from 2020 | <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22790425>, and various | things suggest that timeframe for its genesis. | | The same concern was raised by the user "segfaultbuserr" in | that Show HN thread[1]. | | In 2019 I wrote up this very idea as part of a brain dump of | long-stalled thoughts that I had been kicking around but not | published anywhere. There are mitigations to the attack you | describe, which I included in my original terse writeup about | such a "Wikipedia Name System"[2]. I pasted the explanation in | a comment in the original Show HN thread. The idea lies in the | fact that although wikis can be edited to point to your own | fake honeytrap, there are things that _can 't_ be faked; it's a | public ledger sort of thought exercise in the vein of Bitcoin-- | but no need for proof of work or what is currently associated | with cryptocurrency, etc. As I (re-)explained three years ago: | | > _Not as trivially compromised as it sounds like it would be; | could be faked with (inevitably short-lived) edits, but | temporality can 't be faked. If a system were rolled out | tomorrow, nothing that happens after rollout [...] would alter | the fact that for the last N years, Wikipedia has understood | that the website for Facebook is facebook.com. Newly created, | low-traffic articles and short-lived edits would fail the trust | threshold. After rollout, there would be increased attention to | make sure that longstanding edits getting in that misrepresent | the link between domain and identity [can never reach | maturity]. Would-be attackers would be discouraged to the point | of not even trying._ | | (This also provides mitigation for what is (currently) the top | comment in this thread--the issue of Wikipedians censoring | certain domains, provided that they have a long enough history | to meet the trust threshold before they were decided to be too | contentious to share information about them.) | | 1. See <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22791534> | | 2. Originally published, along with other thoughts from that | month, at <https://www.colbyrussell.com/2019/05/15/may- | integration.html...> | 752963e64 wrote: | voxic11 wrote: | Wikipedia editors have noticed that people use wikipedia for this | purpose (finding the current location of sites) and so they have | started to censor links for sites they don't want to encourage | people to access. Right now this mostly impacts sites few would | condone, like 8chan or kiwifarms. But in theory the policy | applies to any site with illegal material so places like the | pirate bay or scihub could have their links removed at any time. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiwi_Farms#URL | appletrotter wrote: | Could hardcode the values for those sites in the extension in | that case. | maxique wrote: | Which defeats the object when the URLs change so often, and | we're back to the original problem. | EarlKing wrote: | I'm genuinely shocked people haven't been redirecting this to | Tubgirl. Frankly, I'm a little disappointed. | yydcool wrote: | so it's just matter of time, and wikipedia is no better than | google | besnn00 wrote: | Wikipedia has helped me in a couple of instances in which | Google or DuckDuckGo couldn't, for example getting the latest | onion or clearnet URL for a certain site. | bombcar wrote: | Arguably the onion URL is information of value, but someone | who can't figure out what the URL for 8chan might be | probably doesn't need to go there anyway. | rpgmaker wrote: | They certainly are no better than Google in that respect. | Wikipedia has been censoring and promoting tilted political | edits to the pages of certain figures for years now. | Unbeknownst to most people, Wikipedia is central to the | global censorship apparatus that's been put in place in the | last decade or so. | fundad wrote: | A leveraged buyout is always a possibility | kikokikokiko wrote: | We live in a distopia where one of the last search engines that | returns real results related to anything the western mainstream | "hidden forces" do not want you to be able to see is Yandex, a | company located under a dictatorship. In 2022, the only way for | a regular citizen to approximate what is reality, what is the | "truth", is to look for information provided from the opposite | side of any argument you're trying to understand more of. | Everything is fake or hidden from you. It's the stable | diffusion distopia. | ajross wrote: | How about this: try posting an URL for kiwifarms or | stormfront or whatever right here, in this thread. See if it | stays up. See who's willing to tolerate it. | | No one wants what you think you want. The distopia [sic] is a | feature, not a bug. _YES_ , we as a society have decided that | some forms of discourse are to be shunned. All societies | have. All subcultures have forbidden subjects. Everyone does | this. Everyone wants this. | | So please, please stop with the stuff about "reality" and | "truth" as if those are the concepts at hand. No one is | confused about what kiwifarms stands for. We just don't want | them in our feeds. | haroldp wrote: | > YES, we as a society have decided that some forms of | discourse are to be shunned. | | "We as the cultural elite have decided what you may read." | | > No one is confused about what kiwifarms stands for. | | This is demonstrably false. You have invented or swallowed | a narrative about kiwifarms and are working to prevent | anyone else from discovering the truth for themselves. | | A different narrative is that Kiwifarms operated within the | law. False accusations were made against it. CloudFlair | believed those accusations and stopped protecting it from | illegal network attacks. Illegal network attacks knocked it | offline for a while. | | Which of these narratives is true, and how could we find | out? | Cyberdog wrote: | > How about this: try posting an URL for kiwifarms or | stormfront or whatever right here, in this thread. See if | it stays up. See who's willing to tolerate it. | | Man, I almost did. But people just get so irrationally | angry about words on the internet nowadays that I decided | against tempting fate. I don't need people trying to | destroy my career because I don't irrationally hate the | right people right now. | | Yes, Kiwi Farms exists and has information and opinions you | might not like. It certainly has ones that _I_ don 't like. | But at the end of the day, it's just words on the internet; | the stuff about "organized harassment campaigns" and all | that is a media lie. I really wish people would just visit | the place and realize that it's just a bunch of shitposters | with a clear "look, laugh, but don't touch" mentality and | not the demonic bogeyman the press has made it out be. But | I realize that irrational hatred is faster and easier, | so... | LastTrain wrote: | Hey when you think that everyone else is being irrational | guess what? | haroldp wrote: | You may or may not be the irrational one. Would you like | historical examples? | LastTrain wrote: | Oh and you think you are exceptional too. Shall we go for | the trifecta? | haroldp wrote: | > Oh and you think you are exceptional too. | | Of course. Everyone does. | | > Shall we go for the trifecta? | | Shall we put your notion in a historical context or no? | LastTrain wrote: | Unless you are someone of historical significance, no. | dale_glass wrote: | > I don't need people trying to destroy my career because | I don't irrationally hate the right people right now. | | You don't "irrationally" hate them probably because you | happen not to fit the target profile. | | EDIT: And are you serious? You truly think that KiwiFarms | is a quirky, harmless place that just collects info to do | nothing with it, and at the same time believe that on HN | you'd be targeted by people who'd try to ruin your life? | What force keeps such nasty people off kiwifarms but | allows their presence here, I wonder? | | > Yes, Kiwi Farms exists and has information and opinions | you might not like. It certainly has ones that I don't | like. But at the end of the day, it's just words on the | internet; | | There's no such thing as "just words on the internet". | Words express beliefs and intent. I take them seriously. | | > the stuff about "organized harassment campaigns" and | all that is a media lie. | | Of course. The sort of people that compile elaborate | profiles on people including personal information are | some sort of enlightened beings that despite obsessively | tracking down and compiling every embarrassing or weird | thing about another person would never actually use that | information for anything at all. | haroldp wrote: | > There's no such thing as "just words on the internet". | Words express beliefs and intent. I take them seriously. | | How do you decide which words people should be allowed to | read, and which words they should not be allowed to read? | dale_glass wrote: | I wasn't talking about that, but since you asked: My | personal views and morals, just like everyone else. If | you're on something I host, then I make the rules on my | property. | haroldp wrote: | So immoral things should be excised from wikipedia? | dale_glass wrote: | That's for Wikipedia to decide. I'm not a member. | haroldp wrote: | But if you owned wikipedia, you feel it would be best to | remove immoral things from it? | dale_glass wrote: | Depends on what you mean. | | If you mean documenting its existence, then no, because | we have to learn from history. So I wouldn't have an | issue with an article on antisemitism or the like. | | But if I found out that something I own actually helps | Nazis, then yes, I'd do my best to stop that from | happening. If I suddenly ended up owning Stormfront or | Kiwifarms, I would absolutely pull the plug and burn it | all to the ground with no warning. | haroldp wrote: | > But if I found out that something I own actually helps | Nazis, then yes, I'd do my best to stop that from | happening. | | But the internet helps nazis. Telephones help nazis. I | would argue that censorship helps nazis. The real nazis | were completely censored from Weimar radio and Goebbels | touted Der Angriff as "the most censored newspaper" by | the German government. What is our standard for "helps"? | | Side note: the wikipedia article for stormfront retains | the link to the site. Removal was discussed on the Talk | page, but retained with rather pointed language. | dale_glass wrote: | > But the internet helps nazis. Telephones help nazis. | | I'm a consequentialist. I'll make the decision based on | the overall consequences. So for instance the internet | helps nazis, but it also does a lot of good for a lot | more people. Now if the effect of the internet was 99% to | help nazis, that would be a problem. | | > Side note: the wikipedia article for stormfront retains | the link to the site. Removal was discussed on the Talk | page, but retained with rather pointed language. | | Like I said, that's up to them to decide. If it was up to | me, I would not allow that link. | howenterprisey wrote: | They've allegedly had threads on Wikipedia editors (I | haven't personally verified this, as I don't feel like | learning how to navigate that site, but it was stated by | people I find credible). So, no, immoral things should be | documented on Wikipedia, but we're perfectly within our | rights to protect our community. | Cyberdog wrote: | Oh, God, I'm being dragged into this debate again. | | > There's no such thing as "just words on the internet". | Words express beliefs and intent. I take them seriously. | | Intent? Find me a post on KF stating intent to harm | someone in real life which wasn't either downvoted or | promptly deleted. Go ahead. | | > Of course. The sort of people that compile elaborate | profiles on people including personal information are | some sort of enlightened beings that despite obsessively | tracking down and compiling every embarrassing or weird | thing about another person would never actually use that | information for anything at all. | | Create an alt account on KF and post in a lolcow's thread | saying that you want to harm that person in real life. | You'll be downvoted into oblivion, probably banned, | possibly doxed if you used the same username as you use | elsewhere, and possibly reported to law enforcement. | | You can believe what you're told by people with | motivation to lie, or you can discover the truth. Up to | you. | howenterprisey wrote: | They post contact information, links to profiles where | the user can be contacted, and so on, right? If so, | they're complicit in whatever people do with that | information, even if they don't talk about it on the | forums. | haroldp wrote: | I think that is a fair line of reasoning. | | Most online forums have rules against doxing. Then again, | most online forums have problems with anonymous users | making false claims. | | Is wikipedia likewise complicit for publishing articles | on nefarious topics? How about linking to macdonalds.com, | who is surely complicit in more deaths than kiwifarms? | howenterprisey wrote: | Sure, it's also complicit, but the cost-benefit analysis | favors Wikipedia, whereas KF has a much higher bar of | utlity to clear because it's publishing information that | would be trivial to use to hurt specific individuals. | What value could KF provide that's worth that pain? I | don't think there's any. | Cyberdog wrote: | By that logic, if someone uses a phone book to harass you | via telephone, the phone company is liable. | | Or, for a more up-to-date example, if someone uses a DNS | provider to find a server's IP address and do a DDOS | attack against it (as is constantly happening to KF), the | DNS provider would be liable. | howenterprisey wrote: | The phone book and DNS provider are different because | they don't say why one would want to harass those people, | whereas on KF that information is provided along with | their contact info. | dale_glass wrote: | > Intent? Find me a post on KF stating intent to harm | someone in real life which wasn't either downvoted or | promptly deleted. Go ahead. | | Are you new to online communities? I've been a core | member of several for years. | | There's always politics, admin only channels, and people | contacting each other outside the main system. Sometimes | multiple levels, like two admins talking in private, then | adding a third, then bringing it into the admin channel, | then breaking the news into the main community. | | In communities where there's external attacks, or a | concern with reputation, the people in charge typically | take that seriously. It's very possible that something is | publicly forbidden, but with the right contacts you can | find the right people. | | > Create an alt account on KF and post in a lolcow's | thread saying that you want to harm that person in real | life. | | Which is unsurprising because formerly kiwifarms used | traditional hosting, and had to at least keep some | plausible deniability. But everyone knows what all that | stuff they post is for. | | > You'll be downvoted into oblivion, probably banned, | possibly doxed if you used the same username as you use | elsewhere, and possibly reported to law enforcement. | | Sure, and if you know the right people on the right | Discord, then you can avoid all that and discuss all the | plans and share all the juicy news away from prying eyes. | | Besides which, the info is public. Anyone can act on it | without being a member, or having any agreement on | anything with people posting there. | Cyberdog wrote: | > There's always politics, admin only channels, and | people contacting each other outside the main system. | | Okay, so KF is responsible for conversations that happen | outside of KF now? What should KF's admins do about that? | | > Sure, and if you know the right people on the right | Discord, then you can avoid all that and discuss all the | plans and share all the juicy news away from prying eyes. | | Take that up with Discord, then. | dale_glass wrote: | > Okay, so KF is responsible for conversations that | happen outside of KF now? | | No, I mean that any organization is more than what it | presents publicly. The people that own KF, and the people | that post on it are going to have more ways to talk to | each other than to post on public threads. | | > Take that up with Discord, then. | | No, I take it up with the people who use Discord to this | end first of all. And with Discord second, of course, if | they know that's going on there and allow it. | [deleted] | staringback wrote: | > How about this: try posting an URL for kiwifarms or | stormfront or whatever right here, in this thread. See if | it stays up. See who's willing to tolerate it. | | https://kiwifarms.net | g_hn_liaison wrote: | Everyone's already taken the bait, but I'm an awful fish, | so I'll post their secret .onion url: kiwifarmsaaf4t2h7gc3d | fc5ojhmqruw2nit3uejrpiagrxeuxiyxcyd.onion | | It's not really something I'd be comfortable with either, | so I get it, but everyone in this thread should at least | understand that the average kiwi farms thread is roughly as | offensive as the conversations at every job site that | constructed all your houses, every field that grew your | vegetables, and every rig that pumped the oil for your car. | I'm not saying it's _okay_ , but you have to accept it to | some extent. Those people are out there offline, too. | | While you're at it, check out their "Christmas Art" thread | and think of the average Nazi spending most of their time | being a perfectly polite and non-hateful person: | https://archive.ph/TffRs | babypuncher wrote: | Absolutely, even the so-called "free speech" platforms like | Truth Social will ban you for saying the wrong things. | Moral absolutism never really works out. | voxic11 wrote: | Hackernews almost never actually deletes things (afaik they | only do if there is a legal requirement or in exceptional | circumstances after human review). Instead of being deleted | comments/posts get marked as dead and hidden by default. | You can enable viewing dead posts in your profile. | | Basically they implement the strategy discussed here | https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/moderation-is- | differen... | | Its the best of both worlds. People who get offended easily | or just don't want to deal with low quality content can | view the moderated content only. But if the moderation gets | taken too far they can opt in to viewing the unmoderated | content as well. | | Also I'll bite on your challenge https://kiwifarms.net/ is | the current URL. | psychphysic wrote: | What I don't know is, I see mainstream media become | increasingly curated and clearly agenda driven. | | Is this a function of reality or me getting better at | spotting it? | | I felt as though in the 90s CNN legitimately was a good news | source. Early 21centuey VICE was legitimately good. | | Today there is next to nothing given anything other than a | heavily biased view. | | _I think_ the internet has made things worse, there 's a new | kind of bias. What do you set the headline to for the | breaking alert? Because that's what people will see. Follow | that up with a more subtle article and boom you've got a | basically iron glad propaganda machine. | p0pcult wrote: | I think it is a function of game theory akin to Prisoner's | Dilemma. | | If all the news sources are rather centrist (i.e., they all | "cooperate"), then no one gains or loses audiences because | of bias. This is a good strategy when publishing is | expensive. However, as the costs of publishing drop, it | becomes profitable to shave off niche (smaller) audiences, | with biased publication. This begins the defection phase of | the PD game series. As defections accelerate, anyone who | _doesn 't_ defect eventually suffers by continuing to not | defect, leading to a new optimal state of all defections-- | i.e., publishers have to defect to maintain audience. | | I dunno, I just came up with that as I was writing it. | | There are also things to be said about the ability now to | track engagement, which allowed humans to quantify (i.e., | put a cost/value/ROI on) the extent to which bias/outrage | drive engagement. But, this function would still play into | the greater theoretical framework I proposed. | nequo wrote: | This makes a lot of sense. Here is a classic paper that | tests a model like this on US data: | | https://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/biasmeas.pdf | We estimate a model of newspaper demand that incorporates | slant explicitly, estimate the slant that would be chosen | if newspapers independently maximized their own profits, | and compare these profit-maximizing points with firms' | actual choices. We find that readers have an economically | significant preference for like-minded news. Firms | respond strongly to consumer preferences, which account | for roughly 20 percent of the variation in measured slant | in our sample. | p0pcult wrote: | Very cool. Thanks for sharing. Since it is a like minded | result, I obviously have a significant preference for it. | (Unlike the sibling to your comment, which was obviously | produced by someone from _the other team_ ) | | /s | psychphysic wrote: | I think that would make sense if these were new smaller | news media but I see it mostly the bigger players. | | Even the BBC which is state funded. Okay, that might be a | bad example as they are a state broadcaster and so | propaganda is really their remit. | pessimizer wrote: | > niche (smaller) audiences, with biased publication. | | We could just call them specialized audiences with | particular interests, instead of equating the neoliberal | centrism of a bunch of collaborating oligarchic | publications to lack of bias. | | edit: e.g. if all of the publications collaborate to not | discuss issues concerning Mexican-Americans, a defector | who peels off a large audience by being the only | publication that attends to Mexican-American issues would | not be an example of "bias" except under extremely | normative definitions of "bias." | sammalloy wrote: | > I felt as though in the 90s CNN legitimately was a good | news source. | | Nope. They were the original cheerleaders of modern | militarism, from the first Persian Gulf War, which they | turned into an infotainment spectacle devoid of any serious | critical analysis, to their promotion of NAFTA and neo- | liberalism. This idea that things were better in the past | is a form of rosy retrospection and nostalgia. Things | weren't better, they just hid the bullshit under thicker | layers of opaqueness. And I say this as a progressive | liberal who has always hated CNN and despises Fox. | athrowaway12 wrote: | It goes back into at least the 80s as well. | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent | doctor_eval wrote: | I'm not sure. Herman and Chomsky wrote Manufacturing | Consent - a book describing the manipulation of public | sentiment in the service of corporate and political goals - | in 1988, and they were talking about wars from the 60s. The | term itself comes from the 1920s. And 1984 was published in | 1949. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent | mistercheph wrote: | This has always been the case, it's just that the dial has | been turned from industrial dystopia to nightmare. | linuxhansl wrote: | As things stand Wikipedia is pretty good. Non-contentious | topics are free to edit by everyone, | contentious/political/hotbutton/etc topics have restricted | editorship. | | I do not sense any specific bias. As usual, "freedom of | speech" does not imply a right to be listened to. | | Also, I do not buy this dystopia claim. In 99.99% of all | topics we know exactly what is true and what is not. The sky | is blue, clouds are condensed water, the earth is a sphere, | there is racism, there is poverty, wealth is unevenly | distributed over the planet, hygiene helps prevent sickness, | vaccinations have prevented a lot of suffering, social | security is expensive, etc, etc. | | The facts are easy. We used to argue about consequences | stemming from these facts and what do to about it. These days | we tend to confuse our disagreements with "alternate facts". | | It's really not that hard to stay informed. | Manuel_D wrote: | Bias definitely exists but it's on a page by page, or | perhaps topic by topic basis. It can be fun looking at the | talk page - and better yet, the archives of the talk pages. | mistercheph wrote: | This is the style of thinking that is drilled into children | from a young age. No one has ever discovered anything, | mankind has not continually rediscovered the world and then | forged dogmas and killed dissenters and then burned the | dogmas and killed the priests of the former dogma. There is | Capital T Truth and Capital F Factx. No one is responsible | for those factx, they just exist and are delivered by God | into the minds of men. Looking out my window right now, the | sky is grey. | rosmax_1337 wrote: | I hate to break it to you, but the facts are not easy. To | take something which is far enough away that it hopefully | doesn't come across as inflammatory to you, consider the | 9/11 attacks. And how the opinions about what happened are | incredibly split all around the world. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_cons | p... | | Now, you can ofcourse dismiss all these opinions as | "alternate facts". Probably similarly to how devoted | christians dismissed theories about a heliocentric solar | system as "alternative facts" only aspoused by lunatics. | brookst wrote: | We live in an imperfect society where extremists leverage the | very real flaws to insist that _everything_ is _absolutely_ | corrupt and that we should embrace the exact opposite of | anything that's imperfect. Vaccines don't prevent 100% of all | infections for everyone? They're obviously complete frauds | that do no good at all. | | The sad thing is that we have real problems, and this | nihilistic insistence that _everything_ is fake means that | those problems will only get worse. | pessimizer wrote: | This argument is 100% of the time used to silence people by | telling them that they should be talking about anything | other than the subject they are currently talking about. | It's also a generic argument that can be used to dismiss | _any_ issue without changing the wording. | leemelone wrote: | you ok? | LastTrain wrote: | He made a point, what's yours? | doctor_eval wrote: | Right? | | Whenever I get into a discussion about vaccines I say | something along the line of: | | Of all the shitty things our governments do in our names, | you're choosing _vaccines_ to fight against?! | protoman3000 wrote: | I disagree. I find fringe information readily available, | after a few more easy steps that is. | | Could it instead be that the environment (or, to speak in | your words: "the western mainstream hidden forces") has | altered your perception? | | You can always exit the Matrix. | rosmax_1337 wrote: | I agree with this post. Over the span of the last 20 years, | and most certainly the last 7-5 years, the information wars | have ramped up to an entirely new level. After 2018, large | portions of dissident content mostly stemming from the right | was completely banned on youtube, facebook, twitter. And it's | being kept up in tiktok, instagram, and more recently even | entities like cloudflare have begun participating. | | I understand, the truth is not comfortable. It is sometimes | incredibly hurtful to know the other sides version of the | truth. But even then truth is worth it. | | "All I'm offering is the truth, nothing more." | [deleted] | Cyberdog wrote: | Once upon a time I built an iOS language translation/dictionary | app which used Wikipedia as a back end. Basically, if you entered | a word in language X and the Wikipedia version for language X had | an entry, it could find the translation for that word in language | Y by looking at the "this article in other languages" information | in the source for that page. It was useful for finding | translations or transliterations of terms that wouldn't commonly | appear in standard dictionaries, like neologisms, brand names, or | even just really obscure topics. Unfortunately it eventually got | taken down from the App Store because Wikipedia's asshole lawyers | didn't like that I used a serifed W in the logo even though I | made it clear it wasn't an official Wikipedia product everywhere | and I didn't have the motivation to "correct" my audacious use of | an upper-case W which Wikipedia now apparently holds the | copyrights to. | | I still use this technique "manually" for finding translations | when dictionaries, though. Wikipedia has a lot of information | which isn't in a typical API-friendly format, but with a bit of | regex there's some interesting possibilities. | | If this sounds interesting, the Objective-C source is still | available here: https://github.com/garrettalbright/wptrans You | might also be able to find clones of it in the App Store since I | know people were taking my source and republishing it back in the | day, some even for a profit (mine was always free). | pessimizer wrote: | If this takes off, it's just going to result in a court order | against Wikipedia. Z-lib getting popular on Tiktok = no z-lib | anymore. Getting Wikipedia censored will ultimately make it | harder for people to find sites like scihub. | 9edda054-232f wrote: | Why don't just buy a domain like DNSOver.Wiki so people can just | scihub.dnsover.wiki without installing the browser extension.. | aryamaan wrote: | it's actually a clever idea | galaxyLogic wrote: | Bad information is like viruses. Right?. So what we need is an | immune-system. Bad information will still be there but it is | prevented (to an extent) from multiplying. | | What would an immune-system for online information look like? | dontbenebby wrote: | How do you define "bad" information? I found a list of CSAM | sites via a link in a Wikipedia book about onion services- | having a known evil target to practice getting a dot onion to | reveal its ip was both good and bad data, depending on who you | ask. | | (The CFAA has since expired, and those rude little pedophiles | DEFINITELY noticed me.) | meindnoch wrote: | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust | kfiven wrote: | Why Wikipedia though? Wikidata should be one to get this kind of | data and all Wikipedia articles has Wikidata items. On top of | that Wikidata even keep records of site name, like when someone | change their site name. | dontbenebby wrote: | I think a lot of people conflate Wikipedia with the larger | Wikimedia organization. | | https://www.wikimedia.org/ | xd1936 wrote: | I suppose the thought process is, more eyeballs are on | corresponding Wikipedia pages for entities than are on Wikidata | entries, so it's more likely to be corrected/up-to-date. | account-5 wrote: | I always do this, just manually. | tjpnz wrote: | Keep in mind that Wikipedia has a habit of censoring the infobox | URL for sites their editors don't like. | psychphysic wrote: | You say that like the content and topic choice isn't usually | heavily biased! | super256 wrote: | > If you Google "Piratebay", the first search result is a fake | "thepirate-bay.org" (with a dash) but the Wikipedia article lists | the right one. -- shpx | | I'm laughing in pain. I detest google so much for being so bad at | its only job - finding stuff - merely to maximize $$$. Google was | such a great product and genuinely serving humanity. Now it's | only a shell of its former self. | 6chars wrote: | Google is the worst search engine besides every other one | 6chars wrote: | (In my experience at least. I'm open to recommendations!) | super256 wrote: | Amazon product search is worse ;) | aryamaan wrote: | that is what OP meant that Google is the worst and every | thing else is worse. | Spivak wrote: | Google's approach is not, in general, capable of handling | adversarial inputs. This isn't a Google problem as much as | Google is currently losing the SEO war. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-12-02 23:00 UTC)