|
so many red flags in this https://twitter.com/HowellONeill/status/1552031408595648513
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 19:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 11:58 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:This is in a Confluence plugin, not in Confluence itself, so only installations with that plugin installed are vulnerable. Seems like an argument for security through obscurity. The bad guys you need to worry about all have the password - making it crystal clear by posting on Twitter doesn't seem awful. Edit: Seeing the hardcoded guest/guest login makes it a bit more real for me, personally
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 19:10
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:so many red flags in this Isn't this the same trick they pulled last time? Selling a supposed secure phone (that was completely open to the government) to right wingers or something? Mister Facetious fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Jul 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 19:42
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Isn't this the same trick they pulled last time? Selling a supposed secure phone (that was completely open to the government) to right wingers or something? I think it was like US phone or something? Also, this is the ugliest loving android phone I've ever seen, and i own a Galaxy 21.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 20:50
|
|
|
Patriot Moble
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 21:03
|
|
|
our thing is Asbestos-Free Cereal and has gov/military grade encryption.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 21:22
|
|
|
Can't you buy a pre-paid Android phone at WallyMart? Basically a burner phone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 21:30
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Isn't this the same trick they pulled last time? Selling a supposed secure phone (that was completely open to the government) to right wingers or something? It was drug dealers
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 21:42
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Isn't this the same trick they pulled last time? Selling a supposed secure phone (that was completely open to the government) to right wingers or something? The Anom phone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANOM
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 22:12
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:The Anom phone gently caress the cops and all that, but seriously; this was such a galaxy brain play on organized crime.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 01:31
|
|
|
It wasn't really the pigs who came up with it, though. Some coder who had got busted by the FBI and was trusted within the business basically dropped it in their lap in return for reduced sentence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 19:30
|
|
|
exmachina posted:It wasn't really the pigs who came up with it, though. Some coder who had got busted by the FBI and was trusted within the business basically dropped it in their lap in return for reduced sentence. Reduced sentence? What kind of low energy lawyering is that? That ought to have been a Get Out of Jail Free card.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 12:47
|
|
|
Really not surprising given how US cops at every level are probably some of the dumbest people on the planet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 15:00
|
|
|
They aren’t exactly sending their best.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 15:18
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Reduced sentence? That ought to have been a "witness protection program, right away" card.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 02:55
|
|
|
I know social media is a wasteland, but when did our friends at Meta crank the dial on sponsored and suggested links in feeds to max? I just checked my already useless Facebook feed and 40% of the posts are suggested, 30% sponsored, 17% from followed pages, and a whopping 13% from actual people with faces who I might have met once. Similar complaints date from at least a couple of years ago but I don't remember it being quite that bad then. Yes, I'm aware that there's at least one sketchy browser plugin to block sponsored/suggested posts altogether, and I could just delete my account, but there are still a few useful groups on FB that haven't migrated elsewhere yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 05:37
|
|
|
Literally the only thing that these companies have any plan for is to cram more ads into your every orifice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 07:30
|
|
|
They announced some stuff in the past couple of weeks, basically since they can't track people across the web any more and people aren't actively posting on Facebook unless they are boomers sharing racist memes the adverts have no value over any other type of online ad, and selling adverts was the sum total of the company strategy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 10:14
|
|
|
Yeah, there was a whole thing a while back where Apple built in a function that lets you easily opt out of all sorts of trackers (except their own, of course), and it ended up costing Meta literally ten billion in the span of just one year. That, combined with similar tracking prevention measures like the GDPR and certain browsers, really murdered the hell out of Meta's business model. No wonder they're trying so hard to promote their whole metaverse thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 12:10
|
|
|
I have one browser that I don't have an ad blocker installed in and they're really trying to push their Portal devices at the moment
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 12:22
|
|
|
meta's long term strategy is based around buying out/copying the competition. they can't buy out tiktok so they tried to forcibly copy it on instagram while also upping advertising to make up for apple gutting their ad business with the privacy switch. the effort is going extremely poorly because they hamfistedly forced everyone onto video, leading to entrepreneurs/artists complaining their followers don't see their posts if they're not in video, and users complaining they're seeing advertising and a torrent of poo poo from people they don't follow. then zuck said in a statement he plans to double the amount of advertising on the site. as it turns out zucks entire business empire was predicated on zero data protections for users and zero antitrust enforcement. take away those pillars and it melts away in the sun because zuckerberg and his company are deeply uncreative and can't actually build anything appealing inhouse. just look at the metaverse promotion videos. embarrassing. the company also can't reinvent itself with a change in leadership because zuckerberg is unremovable. of all the tech companies meta is the most doomed because their products are by far the least appealing and they're least able to change course. vr is niche and can't grow fast enough to offset their ad revenue getting slashed, especially with khan making an active effort to prevent them from monopolizing the space. they might try to monetize whatsapp but antitrust enforcers are already looking at forcing them to spin that off so i doubt it will play out well. facebook is a pile of legacy poo poo for angry old people used reluctantly by everyone else. i don't think they're going to go bankrupt but they're definitely going to downsize.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 12:25
|
|
|
Anybody forcing video on people hasn't considered that maybe people quickly browsing a social feed don't want it to involve audio. Maybe they're on a commute and already listening to music, maybe they don't have headphones on and don't want to share with everybody in the room.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 12:44
|
|
|
The newly announced move to more "curated content" (ie content from people you don't already follow/know) on instagram is going to kill it in exactly the same way Facebook's move from being a place to see photos your friends upload to a news article filled torrent of recommended links/content killed FB. They've obviously learnt absolutely nothing. All most people want is a social media site where they can upload photos/videos for their real life friends to see, and nothing else on it. It really shouldn't be that much to ask for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 15:41
|
|
|
The recent instagram changes are so bad Kylie Jenner complained and they had to roll them back.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 15:42
|
|
|
When you get down to it, a lot of complaints about these services and their obsessive focus on ads and other annoying forms of monetization come down to "I want a robust service that costs money to provide, for free, and also without anything that inconveniences me." Sorry, it's just not a realistic expectation. I agree ads and marketing algorithms and tracking and poo poo are all bad, but... it's either that or we normalize simply "paying for poo poo" again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 16:12
|
|
|
The problem is is that companies don't do that either. We often end up paying for poo poo AND getting ads snuck in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 16:22
|
|
|
it's just not realistic for a company that previously had less ads to continue having less ads
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 16:56
|
|
|
Seeing alot of ads for ring door bells on PlutoTV, lol at other panopticon. Though tbf, the worst panopticon product I seen is life360, whitehat spyware for "family safety" Also I finally fell for a fake phone number for a pizza place, the one online wasnt the correct one and I had the war crime inconvenience of placing my order again and waitng.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 17:10
|
|
|
PT6A posted:When you get down to it, a lot of complaints about these services and their obsessive focus on ads and other annoying forms of monetization come down to "I want a robust service that costs money to provide, for free, and also without anything that inconveniences me." But like Tuxedo Gin said, even if somebody did try it, the "infinite growth forever" demands of capitalism would pressure the owners into adding bullshit alongside the fee sooner or later anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 17:15
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:The problem is is that companies don't do that either. We often end up paying for poo poo AND getting ads snuck in. It's a miracle we can consume any content without cross promotional advertising rn. That's what the metaverse truly is. In'game ads for God of War: Kratos Goes to China during your playthrough of Bloodborne 2
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 17:19
|
|
|
Try looking at the internet without an ad blocker sometime, it is all gross.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 17:34
|
|
|
PT6A posted:When you get down to it, a lot of complaints about these services and their obsessive focus on ads and other annoying forms of monetization come down to "I want a robust service that costs money to provide, for free, and also without anything that inconveniences me." I don't know what the magic ratio of content is to cover operational costs and have a reasonable profit margin is but if even if it was something relatively high like 80% friend content 20% ads I don't think most people would object. What killed FB in America/Europe wasn't the (comparatively small) number of ads a few years ago, it was the pushing of people towards "engagement" content at the expense of their friends content. A small minority of users _really_ engage with Fox News flame war threads and that drives the overall engagement/time on site figures up, but it turns off the majority of casual users who just want to see photos of their friends and family's holidays/weddings/dogs etc. The problem with that is the lack of stock price go up infinite growth forever like others have said I'd wager, not hosting/admin costs being an unsolvable problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 18:11
|
|
|
Facebook and instagram would be perfectly fine if not for Apple’s privacy changes, as someone above mentioned. Their ecosystem was fine and even flat user growth would have still meant healthy profits. That’s why they’re trying so hard to own the platform of the VR world. They got hosed over by all the existing platforms and can’t wait to get onto from under their thumbs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 18:26
|
|
|
The other problem is that there are generations of social media, and once your time as the trendy one is past, it's past. People moved through bulletin boards, Usenet, blogs, Livejournals, Facebook, Tumblr, Snapchat, Instagram, Tiktok, and poo poo I haven't heard of because I am an old. Facebook is now "that network your parents/grandparents use" and is desperately trying to get back on the front of cultural relevancy rather than being stuck with the low-value older advertisees. The solution to this is that they break their existing products so that they will be more like the cool new trend, thus alienating everybody who still likes the less-trendy product. Like, Instagram is still very much a thing, there are important influencers there, but Meta wants to be sure they're the trendiest one, the cutting-edge one. And it doesn't work that way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 18:43
|
|
|
PT6A posted:When you get down to it, a lot of complaints about these services and their obsessive focus on ads and other annoying forms of monetization come down to "I want a robust service that costs money to provide, for free, and also without anything that inconveniences me." I think it's the other way around: it's that these services couldn't have existed if they had a realistic business model. Nobody would've signed up for Facebook in 2004 if it cost money to use or bombarded people with endless ads. The social media industry, being entirely dependent on user-generated content (both to attract users and to sell those users' data), could only exist in any serious form because it was free and convenient to use. It's only once they've built up a large enough userbase that they can establish themselves using the network effect. Until then, they need to make it as easy as possible to sign up and stick around - even if it means running in the red and using venture capital money to cover the shortfall. But relying on venture capital so hard means that they'll eventually have to provide that much more monetization to satisfy the investors. It's not too much different from how Uber offers lower prices, better driver cuts, and more generous incentives and discounts than the competition - even though the company has never once made a yearly profit, running billions of dollars in the red every year. They pull in so much venture capital that they don't have to worry about making a profit, and their overall business model is extremely dependent on leveraging network effects. So they increase their market share as much as possible by undercutting existing services at all costs, even if it means running at a loss, confident that they can always raise prices later once they've squeezed out all competitors in a market. In many areas, an Uber ride is provided below cost, with the company actively subsidizing it. Later, Uber will jack up the prices, but it's not the customers' fault that Uber was providing the service below cost, and I can't blame customers too much for taking a cheaper and more convenient service (even if that was only the case because Uber was leveraging its massive cash advantage). That's one of the less-emphasized effects of the tech bubble - a slick-talking scammer can make a company into a global titan without having to make an actual profit, relying on the investment money hose to crush the industry through their sheer size and wealth even though the company isn't actually making money. It's completely reshaped entire industries in a really bad way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 19:16
|
|
|
TACD posted:I'd happily pay for a sane, no-ads, no-bullshit, no-algorithm social media service. There isn't one available. As far as I know it's a business model that simply hasn't been tried for social media. cohost wants to be that. It only soft launched recently, who knows if it will ever get enough users to be good. Unlimited length posts, HTML and editing. So tumblr+twitter. quote:never! on cohost
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 19:21
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I think it's the other way around: it's that these services couldn't have existed if they had a realistic business model. Nobody would've signed up for Facebook in 2004 if it cost money to use or bombarded people with endless ads. I'd agree with that, with the proviso that using subscription fees to monetize after the growth phase would probably turn a lot more people off than the occasional ad, and then you lose a significant portion of the network effect. It seems like excessive advertising may also be doing that to a certain point, which is where the "continuous growth" mindset can be blamed. Twitch and YouTube have both taken the very reasonable step of offering either a paid subscription OR ads, but that doesn't stop people from bitching about it, as if they are owed private infrastructure for free.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 19:42
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I'd agree with that, with the proviso that using subscription fees to monetize after the growth phase would probably turn a lot more people off than the occasional ad, and then you lose a significant portion of the network effect. It seems like excessive advertising may also be doing that to a certain point, which is where the "continuous growth" mindset can be blamed. If people start to use a service because it's cheap and/or convenient, and then the service becomes expensive and/or inconvenient, users have every right to complain. Even if it's because the free/convenient service was economically unsustainable long-term, that's the fault of the company for offering an unsustainable service, and pissed-off users are the price the company pays for pursuing that tactic. And given that it's probably the only consequence the company will face for ruthless undercutting tactics that forced more sustainable competitors out of the market, I'm not inclined to sympathy for them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
I'm not saying you should be sympathetic towards them, I'm saying that you shouldn't be pissed off at them and then wonder why there's no alternatives that precisely fit your needs and preferences.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 20:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 11:58 |
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:The other problem is that there are generations of social media, and once your time as the trendy one is past, it's past. People moved through bulletin boards, Usenet, blogs, Livejournals, Facebook, Tumblr, Snapchat, Instagram, Tiktok, and poo poo I haven't heard of because I am an old. Facebook is now "that network your parents/grandparents use" and is desperately trying to get back on the front of cultural relevancy rather than being stuck with the low-value older advertisees. If Facebook is the old person social media, what is Something Awful then
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 20:22
|
|
