Coral doesn't typically die due to rising ocean temperatures... it flees the reef. I think these articles are trying to be contrarian on semantics. Not great.
Good idea - but why? If the purpose is to make sure someone's human, bots are pretty good at cracking captchas. If it's to slow someone down, help them think before they post, then fine, but why a captcha? They are really annoying. Why not make them listen to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_DKWlrA24k all the way through?
Hi - thanks for the comment. That's not a direction I've considered yet, but sounds interesting. Current focus is to redevelop the backend logic to make adding new checks easier.
Glad they explore what the modern day equivalent of burning books is... not a precise comparison but good to noodle on.
"Ovenden sees myriad threats to knowledge amid this ‘digital deluge’. There is ‘linkrot’, those links that lead you to websites that are no longer available. There are denial-of-service-type cyberattacks, like the one that crippled Estonia in 2007, which see websites bombarded with queries, overwhelming servers and causing them to crash (even the Bodleian has been targeted). There is ‘fake news’, as well as ‘alternative facts’, and the manipulation or intentional erasure of data. Ovenden sees the emergence of ‘private knowledge kingdoms’ and ‘surveillance capitalism’ as particular threats: a ‘disproportionate amount of the world’s memory has now been outsourced to tech companies without society realising the fact or really being able to comprehend the consequences’."
I don't get how surveillance capitalism remotely qualifies as a threat in that area - putting aside the ambiguity of the term. (It encompasses red light cameras, government wiretapping and analysis tools, and shopping recommendation algorithims.) Chilling effect is the best I can think of.
Really the answer to the issues for public postings and archival is a DYI ethos and a willingness to buy storage in bulk and archive everything you consider important. The time has never been better for preservation.
Yes, I'm quite surprised (and frankly a bit disappointed) that this wasn't the article's main focus. If anything resembles book-burning today, it's the historical revisionism embedded in "cancel culture".
I'd like to point out that "revisionism" is even scarier in the digital age.
Once you print a book/magazine/newspaper. It's done and locked down on what you said. You can't exactly take it back. Other than saying, "Hey, I was wrong" or whatever. I'm not talking about small errors or whatever. More, the general topic. Like, in the USA during the Bush 2 administration and prior, Democrats were against illegal immigration and Republicans were for it. Now, it's reversed. Hell, even Obama was for a lot more border security during his Senate days. But that changed during his run for presidency. (Broad brush strokes on the issue, obviously far more nuanced of a topic, I'm not on a hill for one or the other right now. This is strictly about the fact of their standpoints changing, nothing else. Calm your political panties.)
In the digital age of easy deleting and altering information, are we going to get to the point on trouble judging what is "historical fact" even more so than ever?
One simple thought, think of all the old racist cartoons from the Disney, Looney Toons era. Some more racist than others. But, lets say all of it is burned, deleted and gone. Hell, the old film reels aren't going to last too much longer anyways. 40 or 50 years from now, there's no actual proof of it existing except for some articles saying "there were racist cartoons by XYZ creator". Alright, prove it. "Well, it says here." But where is the actual cartoon? To be fair, a lack of evidence makes it hard to believe it ever happened. It's pretty fair, at that point, for someone to deny the cartoons ever happened. Especially since we're becoming a far more "evidence" based culture with a lack of anecdotal belief. A random blogger saying "XYZ existed" isn't proof either... because obviously you can't lie on the internet... cough cough. Photoshoping, deep fakes... the whole think of what "happened" is a scarier concept. At some point, do we just not trust a single damn thing on the internet?
I do know it's difficult to really wipe anything off the internet. Mostly due to the distributed nature and freedom of speech aspect of it... but I think a lot of people have to agree, both of those attributes are being threatened. Preserving history, no matter the sensitivity of it is pretty important.
Weird rant that's marginally related, but it's something that's been bothering me a lot the past few years. The "book burning" problem is going to get worse at this rate unless some major cultural changes happen.
One of the great treasures of the internet is Google books; something which exists in a precarious legal state and which could disappear. Worse; libraries are getting rid of physical copies. Probably especially in "non approved" subjects, which pretty much everything before 1945 was. There is libgen at least... but it's not as complete in older books.
>One of the great treasures of the internet is Google books
I'm not saying your wrong... I just don't think that's enough. It's still digital. It can be changed and who would know? Yea, I guess the same can apply to print media... but if 10 people have a print-dated copy of something, you can cross reference on potential forgery-changes. You don't really get that with something like Google Books.
But again, physical copies still aren't perfect because of environmental impact. Storage. Care. Reprinting over time. What's worth reprinting? Fires. Floods. Organizing.
Though.... damn... I can't believe I'm saying this. I'm the first one, when the day comes, to happily pull the plug on cryptocurrency when humanity is done with the stupid thing... but after McAfee eats his own dick (look up his bitcoin bet if you don't know what I'm talking about). However, a distributed ledger of important libraries isn't the worst idea... minus the stupid fucking coin part. Just... that needs to be dropped.
Those two are completely different sins - even putting aside that "cancel culture" as a term is about whose ox is gored. Fire a teacher for once having done porn in college or expel a student because their mother works as a stripper and they call it "community standards". Or for approving of gay marriage back in the 80s or 90s. But when they get fired for wearing blackface, or supporting literal genocide suddently it is cancel culture out of control. Their complaints aren't that the game is fucked up but that they aren't winning anymore.
Judging the past by the standards of today may be fallacious (said complaints ignore contemparies pointing out how fucked up it was meaning the ideas certainly were conceivable) but it is discrediting and not the erasure of knowledge of book burning.
Hi! Super cool extension for readers, seems easy for publishers too. I like that it isn't baked into the browser like the Brave BAT.
Just curious - what split have you seen so far between readers picking ads v micropayments?
Question before I try it out -How do you serve up ads? Are you a part of a network? I noticed you collect all data from sites with the extension, curious to know if the ad alternative is collecting my data and targeting me with personalized ads.
Thank you so much! If you email us(ruby at satotious.com) your userID, we will credit it with a small amount of btc so you can test the extension auto-pay feature for free.
So far we are getting 95% picking ads vs micropayments, I guess thats to be expected as most people dont have bitcoin lightning wallets yet.
Right now we have demo ads which we create. Our ads are slightly different as they incorporate a captcha.
The permissive permission on the extension is so we can inject the auto-pay functionality. We dont collect your browsing data. Open sourcing the browser extension and paywall is on the road map. The future plan is that users connect their own lightning wallet to the browser extension and publishers do the same for the paywall, therefore we wont see any of those interactions and keep everything private
"High uniqueness hold seven when histories are truncated to just 100 top sites." This is similar to the app finger printing they do with mobile phones, identify you by the unique assortment of apps on your device.
Should the top concern be about identification or deep collection of browsing history?
The point is that browser history collection is the same as cross-site tracking. Any 3rd party analytics operation like Google Analytics is able to access your browser history. To such a point that whether they do or not shouldn't matter and couldn't be proven anyways.
Making a request to any 3rd party domain on every page of the internet is what gives people access to that information.
It's not talking about a browser.getHistory() API. Owning the 3rd party resource (CDNs, analytics) that is loaded on most big websites is far better than that.
