Comment on 14,000 routers are infected by malware that's highly resistant to takedowns

• TehPers@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Are you sure? Those seem like the only two options to me. Clearly the purpose of the article is to convince people to feed their children to the rich.

  Seriously, I’ve seen an increase in these weirdly extremist comments recently. One would have to wonder if they are the ones serving another’s interests.

  source

  • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    That sounds like something that someone who was serving another’s interest would say!

    source

    • searabbit@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Maybe the interests we serve are the friends we made serving another’s interests along the way…to serve interests? Or something like that

      source
  • t3rmit3@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    I don’t think anything Onno said is “extremist”, I just think it’s so vague that what they think might be happening is indecipherable. Makes it more likely to be rage/engagement bait, imo.

    But it’s not extreme to think that perhaps, given the current anti-anonymity push among governments worldwide, and the fact this uses DHTs and P2P routing, governments might love to tarnish those things in peoples’ minds in order to more readily accept banning of bittorrent, onion routing, TOR, etc, which can help bypass a lot of the dangerous government net restrictions and surveillance being put in place.

    Do you think that government intrusion into media, or the existence of online influence campaigns, are “extremist” conspiracies rather than proven realities?

    source

    • TehPers@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      By extremist, I was referring to the absurdity of the statement. Either it’s the end of the world, or the article authors are conspirators. Surely it can’t be something simple that isn’t on one end of a spectrum. This is what leads to radicalization.

      Do you think that government intrusion into media, or the existence of online influence campaigns, are “extremist” conspiracies rather than proven realities?

      They are both. An extremism can be real. A conspiracy can be proven true, and in your example it is.

      There is no evidence, nor reason to believe, the authors of the article in question are conspirators. There is no reason to believe the contents of the article are intended to be anything more than informational, even if with the inherent bias all authors posess. To perceive it as such would be a sign of extreme radicalization or, as you put it, an “online influence campaign” which would be conveniently set before a midterm election in the US.

      To be clear, I’m not suggesting the commenter actually is part of some campaign. I wouldn’t know. I do believe its contents are extreme though.

      source

      • t3rmit3@beehaw.org ⁨20⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        So to be clear, asking whether an article has ulterior motives qualifies as an “extremist” question, in your eyes?

        Because that seems a pretty extreme limitation on acceptable critical and contextual interrogation of news, to me.

        source

        • -> View More Comments