JasonADrury

7 ms·

1.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
The blog post was written by AI. "luxury" is one of the adjectives AI likes to use a lot.
2.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
> The DDoS is pretty obviously ridiculous, completely unacceptable, and entirely indefensible, while the blog post seems like whatever The DDoS hasn't even successfully taken the website down, so your objection is entirely ideologic
3.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
Where did I ever argue that? It's obviously not "a-ok". It's just "meh", a silly childish tantrum.
4.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
>the way Jason Drury shifts from “tried to dox” to “doxx’d” I double-checked all my comments, that never happened.
5.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
>The weird part to me is that some people are seemingly trying to downplay a popular website abusing visitors to DDoS someone. What's the true, practical impact being downplayed here?
6.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
Nonsense, by the mid-aughts google searches and whois lookups were key tools for doxing. If you had been around in the hacker scene at that time, you'd be well aware instead of trying to inject fabricated mystique.
7.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
We called this exact pattern of behaviour "doxing" on IRC in the early 2000s, I really don't know why you think I'm using some new definition. It's probable that in the later 00s this would have been called a "
8.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
Ulysses is not enjoyable.
9.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
You've caught me!
10.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
Of course attempting to dox someone is an attack.
11.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
Right, yes, because the people doing this totally don't know that they're breaking the law?
12.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
>Also documenting who funds a service is in the public interest. Not really, no. It's not unlikely to result in the service ceasing to exist.
13.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
I think the DDoS is clearly problematic, I just don't think it's problematic because it's criminal. It's problematic because it's childish and pointlessly degrades the user experience.
14.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
Archive.org has an even worse history of this, FWIW. It allows website owners and third parties to tamper with archived content. Look here, for example: https://web.archive.org/web/20140701040026/http://e
15.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
I don't see how this description changes the fundamental nature of your actions. Even a half-assed attempt at doxing is still an attempt at doxing. It'd be much easier to accept that you're acting in good faith had you delete
16.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
I'm sure it's DDoS, just like the purpose of gyrovague.com is to attack archive.today Easy stuff, no?
17.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
I suggest you double-check that. Archive.today/archive.is is the one which bypasses paywalls and makes unreadable content readable, not archive.org
18.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
Defamation? No. Doxing? Yes. It's clear that the person running archive.today does not actively publicize their identity. > As far as I read the tone of the post is full of admiration Exactly like an unhinged fan stalking a celebrit
19.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
So far, the only sin archive.today has been accused of is retaliating against a guy attempting to dox them. That's a pretty small sin in my book. To be written off as wildly unsuccessful but entirely justified self defense. DDoSing gyr
20.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
Jani Patokallio who runs gyrovague.com published a blog post attempting to dox the owner of archive.today. Jani justifies his doxing as follows "I found it curious that we know so little about this widely-used service, so I dug into it
21.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
The purpose of a thing is what it does.
22.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
>It's not just problematic content, it's criminal behavior. How is that supposed to be a big deal when the one of core services archive.today provides is obviously illegal anyway?
23.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
Okay, there's one filler post I missed. I'm sure it took a lot of time to write the 16739382nd post explaining what the various things on a boarding pass mean.
24.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
Because all the content in the past 4+ years is about archive.today?
25.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
Nobody knows. If Trump follows through with his latest threat, the answer could feasibly turn out to be "decades".
26.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
How is that an example of the big players defrauding the common people?
27.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
> Iran, a fundamentalist fanatic country United States, a fundamentalist fanatic country: https://bsky.app/profile/gregsargent.bsky.social/post/3mhgag...
28.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
>Trying to hit the Burj Khalifa without targeting any military or high political office is terrorism. It's really not credible to claim that Iran has made any serious efforts to hit the Burj Khalifa, they would have succeeded if the
29.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
If something bad happened, it would be the first time. It's of course possible that some future substances might be more dangerous.
30.
by JasonADrury 6mo ago
https://artists.spotify.com/artificial-streaming Spotify clearly communicates that this is not allowed.

More ›