Dr. Hax on Nostr: It's interesting to see such a mixed bag from someone claiming to be an independent ...
It's interesting to see such a mixed bag from someone claiming to be an independent thinker.
https://deltacharlie.tech/45890
I agree with most of what they wrote, but there are also so glaring problems.
I agree with the editor's choice of omitting what are essentially personal attacks. In the case near the end, about growing food, it didn't even seem relevant to the points being made.
Next, hacking and 2600 in particular, has always been political. From the issue of being able yo hook up you're own equipment to the phone lines in yhe 80s to, PGP debate in the 90s, to protesting Carnivore and Echelon, or opposing the corporate big data collection and exploitation.
Many of the sources of information they suggested block Tor, which is especially ironic since the author specifically suggested using Tor.
Perhaps more importantly, Zerohedge in particilar tracks SO MUCH of their readers' data and sells it to SO MANY people, it boggles the mind. It should be clear to any free thinker that they are going to say outrageous things to get clicks so they can sell the information they harvest. This is the exact type of exploitation that the author is accusing the mainstream media of doing (and I don't disagree, they have an incentive to do whatever sells).
ShadowStats at least seems good on the privacy front, and the content looked reasonable at a glance, but I have not dug into it in any detail to figure out if I can trust them.
I couldn't get to most of the other sites on account of blocking Tor.
Also, the article was too long. The same points could have been made much more succinctly. At a minimum it would have made sense to break them up into more focused pieces.
I understand the author's decision to not debate the topic with trolls, but I would hope they do not shrink from legitimate debate. I guess time will tell.
https://deltacharlie.tech/45890
I agree with most of what they wrote, but there are also so glaring problems.
I agree with the editor's choice of omitting what are essentially personal attacks. In the case near the end, about growing food, it didn't even seem relevant to the points being made.
Next, hacking and 2600 in particular, has always been political. From the issue of being able yo hook up you're own equipment to the phone lines in yhe 80s to, PGP debate in the 90s, to protesting Carnivore and Echelon, or opposing the corporate big data collection and exploitation.
Many of the sources of information they suggested block Tor, which is especially ironic since the author specifically suggested using Tor.
Perhaps more importantly, Zerohedge in particilar tracks SO MUCH of their readers' data and sells it to SO MANY people, it boggles the mind. It should be clear to any free thinker that they are going to say outrageous things to get clicks so they can sell the information they harvest. This is the exact type of exploitation that the author is accusing the mainstream media of doing (and I don't disagree, they have an incentive to do whatever sells).
ShadowStats at least seems good on the privacy front, and the content looked reasonable at a glance, but I have not dug into it in any detail to figure out if I can trust them.
I couldn't get to most of the other sites on account of blocking Tor.
Also, the article was too long. The same points could have been made much more succinctly. At a minimum it would have made sense to break them up into more focused pieces.
I understand the author's decision to not debate the topic with trolls, but I would hope they do not shrink from legitimate debate. I guess time will tell.