This might be out of context for the article, but once we are in /c/technology get this: GIMP is a slur, and their slogan during startup is "we glitch because we twitch" which makes me want to kick them in the nuts every time I use the fucking software.
whydudothatdrcrane
"All property is theft" is a well-known anarchist adage. I first heard of it when I was like... in my earliest introduction to anarchist ideas. I am genuinely surprised you have never heard of it.
Aah.. Boomer bait, we get that a lot :s
Best thing after "Those people who enjoy your memes, are they in the room with us now?" - therapist session.
IA is a pillar of internet activism, and an exceptional instance of the spirit of the web pioneers. No real hacktivist would take them on. These guys are spooks, black hat, or corporate actors.
Archives work against information control. "Who controls the present now controls the past". They wouldn't like archived versions of things get in the way of their very, very expensive narratives they are pushing, now would they?
All this is speculative of course, but those domains you listed are vanity domains in lucrative markets. I call them vanity domains, because it can easily set you back 3-4 figures to get a domain like me.blog , let alone yourname.cars which is quite desirable if you sell cars. As with everything else, domain prices are simply subject to the laws of supply and demand.
Regarding .io , compared to average country code domains, such as .de for example, that tend to be quite modestly priced, .io has seen substantial increase in the past 5 or so years, transformed from a geeky exoticism to a symbol of AI-hype tech companies.
At least from my perspective.
Certainly. I try to do the same, in fact I craft my comments so that they are immediately useful to others. Nonetheless, this might be not enough. Trolls are there for a reason, and you have to accept that our comment-section skirmishes do not add up to much, especially when you consider state-sponsored trolling and mega-corporate push of the far right agenda, across all media outlets, including social media.
Perhaps peppering responses with links is counterproductive. Why not follow a more consistent strategy? Such an approach would for example summarize the opposition's view in good faith, give a name to the fallacies in it, and respond not only by providing a link, but a short synopsis of what the link is and how it refutes those fallacies. This approach helps not only rebut the opponent, who may be unwilling to listen to reason, but everyone following the conversation in real time or in the future. For this reason it is also great to use archived versions of links, whenever you can.
Possibly the domain is visible with a traffic monitoring tool. Everything else is between you and the bank via HTTPS. Having said that, whatever is not over https is visible to whoever sits on the same network as yourself.
This trick should come in handy pal
12ft.io/https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/10/sam-altman-mythmaking/680152/
Is this why we should not delegate the control of hate speech to the state, because it will always blow up in our faces?