I have a condition that I cannot listen to media about things I know too much about.
For this reason, I cannot watch/listen to darknet diaries, or a host of other topics. The physical cringe of wanting to correct the record is unbearable, but from what I heard, they are very accurate and have done their research.
Microsoft brags about "pwning" them to this day...in their own Terms of Service, in their enforcement blog posts, and other places.
per gentlemen's agreement (something the soulless, kakfa-esque fucks at M$ will never understand), I can't elaborate further...
but if you ever find a 0-day / bug, don't pursue a bug bounty.
They will put a bounty on you, and squash you like the bug.
Nintendo threatening modders legally is literal child's play compared to the literal mob tactics MS and Activision used against what they perceived as financial or PR threats.
> Nintendo threatening modders legally is literal child's play compared to the literal mob tactics MS and Activision used against what they perceived as financial or PR threats.
I am sure you are aware of what Sony did around 10 years ago to certain people regarding the PS3 and its exploits.
> but if you ever find a 0-day / bug, don't pursue a bug bounty.
It is still elementary days but there has been some controversy among researchers that in reality John Deere's bug-bounty program is being a PR stunt in order to cover up bugs and stall disclosure. So I guess people are slowly waking up to the reality of things not going their way.
refusing to elaborate your argument because of some vague "gentlemen's agreement" is a terrible idea. I dont suggest anyone listen to this guy's advice, trust me I would tell you why but I've made a promise and we pinky-sweared!
Not naming and shaming enables terrible people to do continue doing terrible things. I've never understood (unless there is an NDA, but sometimes even then..)
Companies don't give a damn about REAL laws if they can pay their way out, let alone 'gentleman's agreements'. You are personifying something that will take every chance it gets to screw you over if it's worth it.
Michael Crichton, (as above quoted) didn't get to feel the pain of having the opportunity to correct the newspaper article, as we "do".
That's the pain I feel when facing this new instance of the affect, in a more palatable form:
I could comment on the internet - but knowing my comments will, despite immense reverence, or correctness, be ignored by the silent masses, turns the effect into an affliction.
The man reading the newspaper can mutter the facts under his breath. Had he yell louder, still, nothing will change - his breakfast partner bemoaned.
The miniscule chance of my comment correcting the record pains me. Had I yell louder, maybe someone will take note. But I can't - because they won't, and the possibility of my pertinent, small chance of making a difference gets irrevocably distant, as an algorithm pushes the topic of collective interest to someone else's disdain.
i was explaining the feeling. it's the same shared in the sibling comment, but it is basically more emotionally draining because of the personal involvement, with guilty tinges of self-resentment
Could you switch to attack mode and publish your own story/blog/podcast? This way you wouldn't need to react to an existing article but present the story from afresh.
I am concerned with 3 letter agencies, but still entertain the idea of maintaining two, unrelated, uncorrelatable, and hopefully forever separate, internet identities.
Like an internet-mullet. Business in my name, party behind an alias.
The interesting bit would be writing and maintaining two distinct sites/corpus.
It is generally recommended (OPSEC Bible rule 3) to never publish, however, I have more stories to tell now than future crimes to commit, so, one day, yes, I would like to.
That is the best thing I've read in the last two years.
The internet undermines a lot of this though from a technical perspective. If you are interested in things technically (building PCs! Gaming! Development!) you read the sources from better tech sites and it is not as bad as back in the day when you had newspapers and empty pretty talking heads on CNN. Well, unless you're in the echo chamber as described here...
The other thing is just that mainstream media is just AWFUL at science and technology, because journalists inherit the general anti-scientist bias of the general population and humanities domains. On "people affairs" they usually have sociology and psychology and poli sci background and instincts... they are reporters of human structures and motivations.
So I suppose it is true that they have better reporting of the affairs of non-scientists to some degree.
Just because a reporter covering some fluffy science piece might things wrong does not mean a different reporter, in a different department, covering a completely different subject, got things wrong (to the same degree, or at all.) That "hypothesis" is a genetic fallacy.
It also doesn't distinguish between reporting ("Dr. Bob says wet streets cause rain"), analysis ("Dr Bob says wet streets cause rain; is this accurate?") and opinion ("In the opinion of the columnist/author, Dr. Bob is an idiot who thinks wet streets cause rain! This is just yet another example of the violence inherent in the system, decaying the moral fabric of our system."
It also doesn't account for the Dunning-Kruger effect, or on Joe Q Public's near total ignorance on the subject of observational biases and dependency on anecdotes and personal experience.)
That "hypothesis" leverages Joe thinking some reporter covering global warming is "fake news" when it's been a cold, snowy week...to get Joe to think that reporting about current events or politics is equally "fake."
A reminder that a reporter who writes "Dr. Bob says wet streets cause rain" is not publishing fake news. It's reporting the fact that there is someone who said/thinks that. That is different from presenting their statement as fact.
The hypothesis doesn’t say that all reporters always get things wrong. The point is that we can read reporting on something we’re very familiar about and notice how flawed it is, but when we read other reporting from the same source we just assume it’s correct. Whether or not it actually is correct is beside the point - it’s about the assumptions we make internally.
| A reminder that a reporter who writes "Dr. Bob says wet streets cause rain" is not publishing fake news. It's reporting the fact that there is someone who said/thinks that. That is different from presenting their statement as fact.
Cool well it sounds like they are reporting something interesting or truthful so it's fake news in my book.
The "hypothesis" it's about us reading, not them writing.
We don't notice how little we know on topics we don't fully grasp, but when we notice them in topics we are more experienced about we don't do anything, we just change topic.
It's crazy to hear that story told back to me. I wasn't part of the core of it, but everything as intense as xbox-underground has a huge fringe. I was in that fringe. Listening to the background of all that stuff i was a part of is very cool. I remember the leaks, the return scams, the carding, and the circulation of password dumps. It was a crazy time.
That they built a working Xbox One (before it had even been announced) just by looking at the spec sheets etc. and buying the parts on Newegg is incredible.
I believe these two podcast episodes cover that in depth.
https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/45/
https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/46/