6 ms·

They removed changes and added their own stuff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/214.13.216.142 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contrib

They removed changes and added their own stuff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/214.13.216.142 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/214.13.2... ARIN shows that 214.0.0.0/8 CIDR is still US Department of Defense (or Department of War as Trump and Hegseth aptly call it) but reverse DNS over 20 years later does not still point to the same CENTCOM IP. Also to a point - US military propaganda arm was doing this over 20 years ago. After getting the gift of country articles to mostly come verbatim from CIA and US State department sheets.

swed420 5mo ago
[flagged]
- pixl97 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - swed420 5mo ago
    There are gradations between platforms, but I'd generally agree with you.
- nsowz 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 4mo ago
    Considering how we've tolerated your 500+ accounts over 10+ years I'm surprised you don't feel more warmly towards us.
  - swed420 5mo ago
    > The moderation of this website is downright shameful. It's more like a series of tradeoffs compared to other platforms when it comes to features and userbase tendencies, and none are perfect. Every platform sucks in some way. Also, users (and user bots) do the flagging here, not moderators.
    - nsowz 5mo ago
      [flagged]
      - amanaplanacanal 5mo ago
        This is a free to use site. How many moderators do you think they would have to hire to do the work you think they should be doing?
        nsowz 5mo ago
        They shouldn’t allow users to moderate the site, even if it means longer response times to remove spam, since it very commonly leads to the users abusing that power to remove things that they do not like even if they do not break the rules. That happens very often and the moderators are okay with it because allowing users to remove other users’ content so it goes with the “editorial line” of the commenters of the site lowers dissent and therefore they have to work less.
        gessha 5mo ago
        A perfectly secure system is one you can’t use. Another version is: The optimal amount of fraud is non-zero.
      - swed420 5mo ago
        You sure seem to have an axe to grind with this site in particular, when in reality it is not wholly better or worse than any other social media / discussion platform. In fact, in some ways it's somewhat innovative with some really simple ideas that help distinguish it from the rest. I don't know why you think moderators should work for free. That's up to the platform to decide. Also, I'd take the lenience found on HN any day over the ban hammer / shadow ban / user siloing approaches that others sites cave to. As we've seen, there is no perfect approach.
        nsowz 5mo ago
        First, nowhere in my comment did I say I wanted moderators to work for free. Second, HN shadowbans all the time - they shadowban so much that regular bans do not even exist here. If they ban you, it will be a shadow ban.
  - mrexroad 5mo ago
    Says the one day old account. Hmm…
- IshKebab 5mo ago
  [flagged]

swed420 5mo ago

[flagged]

pixl97 5mo ago
[flagged]
- swed420 5mo ago
  There are gradations between platforms, but I'd generally agree with you.
nsowz 5mo ago
[flagged]
- dang 4mo ago
  Considering how we've tolerated your 500+ accounts over 10+ years I'm surprised you don't feel more warmly towards us.
- swed420 5mo ago
  > The moderation of this website is downright shameful. It's more like a series of tradeoffs compared to other platforms when it comes to features and userbase tendencies, and none are perfect. Every platform sucks in some way. Also, users (and user bots) do the flagging here, not moderators.
  - nsowz 5mo ago
    [flagged]
    - amanaplanacanal 5mo ago
      This is a free to use site. How many moderators do you think they would have to hire to do the work you think they should be doing?
      - nsowz 5mo ago
        They shouldn’t allow users to moderate the site, even if it means longer response times to remove spam, since it very commonly leads to the users abusing that power to remove things that they do not like even if they do not break the rules. That happens very often and the moderators are okay with it because allowing users to remove other users’ content so it goes with the “editorial line” of the commenters of the site lowers dissent and therefore they have to work less.
        gessha 5mo ago
        A perfectly secure system is one you can’t use. Another version is: The optimal amount of fraud is non-zero.
    - swed420 5mo ago
      You sure seem to have an axe to grind with this site in particular, when in reality it is not wholly better or worse than any other social media / discussion platform. In fact, in some ways it's somewhat innovative with some really simple ideas that help distinguish it from the rest. I don't know why you think moderators should work for free. That's up to the platform to decide. Also, I'd take the lenience found on HN any day over the ban hammer / shadow ban / user siloing approaches that others sites cave to. As we've seen, there is no perfect approach.
      - nsowz 5mo ago
        First, nowhere in my comment did I say I wanted moderators to work for free. Second, HN shadowbans all the time - they shadowban so much that regular bans do not even exist here. If they ban you, it will be a shadow ban.
- mrexroad 5mo ago
  Says the one day old account. Hmm…
IshKebab 5mo ago
[flagged]