Foremost, I personally appreciate the effort you've given for this comment and your fight for your beliefs in general.
Although, handling it purely pragmatically, there is no other concise source of information as vast as Wikipedia's concerning so many facets of life as well as sciences that is far enough from feelings' reach that is pretty well-written as the only possible bias present is also factually incorrect (as opposed to ideological topics).
I understand that supporting and reading articles from a source which you know is blatantly lying or otherwise obstructive or manipulative on other topics is a difficult undertaking but we literally have no other option . There is no war but the war against illiteracy to be won. Education, information and intelligence is man's best friend and until a better alternative arises for the masses (e.g scientific articles do not count as an alternative, Britannica is only in English) the one we have should we stuck with, and its quite well managed too.
Bias in itself is eternal, and holding any entity to a standart so high is illogical at best in my view. If there was no Wiki, would you think the many blog pages filling its space would be absent of the very bias you're talking about, but worse, would they have had anyfactual backing?
even if we completely ignore organizational structure, do you truly believe not holding companies accountable for a few rogue employees is a good call? Is it too difficult for higher-ups to blame the rank-and-file and arrange scapegoats in the opaque black box that is a corporation? and even still, we can ignore this potential precedent and focus on motivation only: if an employee uses illegal means as a tool to reach their work goals, isn't an investigation into said work goals and culture warranted?
This is all already happening, that's why we know about it. But there's also nuance. Was piracy Meta corporate strategy, as implied ad nauseam on here, or was it some guy taking a shortcut?
Is it actually bad that Meta trained their AI on books? No, court already decided that it's substantially transformative and doesn't harm the publishers. Should Meta employees have stolen the books? No, obviously not. The middle men need their cut.
I wholly agree with your point on X. The comeback of racism is one of the most dangerous social phenomenons in today's world. Besides sowing unsurmountable amounts of hatred, it also brings along xenophobia, misogyny/misandry and the whole likes along with it as the forerunning discriminatory practice in our world.
You will find many, arguing they abandoned all online presence. Urging people to leave social media for a better life like they have. Yet they have accounts on these pseudo-social sites - Reddit, HN ... - actively participating. I don' think restricting your own access to a swath of information is a good idea, no matter what that info is. Moving your monthly online discussion habit to Reddit of all places... Humans are social, and with the internet's presence in every facet of life, it will be harder to run from it.
I don't think simply being absent is logical. Sensing ideological currents, bias and being primarily a lurker rather than participating will have the same mental benefits without limiting your knowledge.
What mental benefits are people getting exactly? Cause, pretty sure you'd get much more from reading a long form article that the 10s tik tak clip or whatever.
The majority of people seem barely able to form a coherent thought beyond what they've been reading in their bubble these days.
40% of the country doesn't even bother to vote most elections (here in the US)... I don't think "sensing ideological currents" is really at the forefront of most people's minds lol.
I read Hacker News once a day maybe, and use a couple discord servers. But have abandoned everything with an infinite scroll produced by rage inducing, bubble forming algorithms. I prune my discord servers down, and blocked HN on everything but my work computer (lol).
Untrue, you can modify it enough to avoid giving it more entropy. Possible approaches include:
- Spoofing browsers down to the TCP stack
- Plausibily random values
- Every possible bit scrambled on each request
You can see a similar thought-process behind Tor bridges so it is tried-and-tested. Noted that it is a much more difficult feat to accomplish in a full blown browser rather than network layer.
I can also suggest OpenSnitch or Portmaster to anyone whose conscious about these network connections. I couldn't live without them, never trust opt-outs.
> Devs could setup an option to pacman -U which allows it to bypass VT
Goes against the very nature of the distro. I very rarely see assumed defaults in Arch, and they are almost always opt-in. Mind you, you need community provided helpers to automate AUR building, its that barebones and I'm sure there are people who manually build / use custom scripts to build every package.
LLM written, spurring up controversy, holding a private company accountable like they are the government. If they - PuTTY - is bothered enough, they are allowed to sue or request a takedown, and if legal grounds are not viable I don't think Google would mind ranking the correct website up after request. This "issue" has been present for years and this journalist picks up on it, presses on the guy as if he was in the Panama Papers or something and writes the article with newgen LLM no less. Disgraceful.
Although, handling it purely pragmatically, there is no other concise source of information as vast as Wikipedia's concerning so many facets of life as well as sciences that is far enough from feelings' reach that is pretty well-written as the only possible bias present is also factually incorrect (as opposed to ideological topics).
I understand that supporting and reading articles from a source which you know is blatantly lying or otherwise obstructive or manipulative on other topics is a difficult undertaking but we literally have no other option . There is no war but the war against illiteracy to be won. Education, information and intelligence is man's best friend and until a better alternative arises for the masses (e.g scientific articles do not count as an alternative, Britannica is only in English) the one we have should we stuck with, and its quite well managed too.
Bias in itself is eternal, and holding any entity to a standart so high is illogical at best in my view. If there was no Wiki, would you think the many blog pages filling its space would be absent of the very bias you're talking about, but worse, would they have had any factual backing?