derek

@derek@infosec.pub

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK about the GI Rights Hotline⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  All people are born ignorant to their material circumstances and the conditions necessary for them. Disadvantaged folk often have a more difficult path out of that ignorance. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs provides some insight into why: one rarely has capacity for deep introspection when they’ve been deprived of basic needs.

  The US Military (among others) purposefully recruit more heavily in economically depressed areas. This has been true for decades. These two facts are correlated. Couple this with American Exceptionalist propaganda which created the myth and social elevation of the American Soldier as the ultimate freedom fighter / patriot and maybe you can sympathize with those who enlist.

  My point is not that individuals should be excused from being taken to task for their actions. Nor is it that all those who enlist are duped into it. It’s this: people are rarely lost causes, are often unguided and live unexamined lives, and their personal context matters. When I’m struggling to find empathy I look to Daryl Davis. When we encounter ignorance, hate, and bigotry, we are right to oppose it. Always. How we do so should be conditioned, and possibly tempered, by the fact that we ourselves are ignorant to the context of the neighbors assigned to oppress us.

  Do not dismiss out of hand the power of speaking to reason and empathy in the face of violence and hate. Take them to task with the intention of educating a lost comrade. We must defend ourselves when the need arises but, prior to that Rubicon, we ought to acknowledge that were it not for circumstances outside our control so too could we have remained ignorant and been persuaded toward hate.

  There is no more stalwart an ally than one who has been given the tools to free themselves from chains they were sold as armor.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Valve ban advertising-based business models on Steam, no forced adverts like in mobile games⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Lootboxes.

  Players have a random chance of getting crate while playing the game. Each crate is a pool of item cosmetics with various levels of rarity. To acquire one of them the player must purchase a one-use key with real money. Expending the key on a crate initiates a die roll that determines which cosmetic is unlocked.

  That’s the gambling they’re responsible for. What gambling players may of afterward is not the same conversation.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Another of God's cruel tricks.⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Make a container out of isomalt. Shatter it. Eat the pieces. Laugh in god’s face.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨M4 Mac Mini Power Button Has New Bottom Location⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  laughs in home lab

  Not that I’d buy it but, if I did, that power button might get used twice a year. Likely less since I wouldn’t be able to upgrade or maintenance its hardware.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  That’s a problem. Absolutely. It’s not the problem though. I’m not sure the problem can be summarized so succinctly. This is the way I’ve been putting it:

  These are the top reasons humanity needs successful, decentralized, open social media platforms:

  1. Collecting and selling user’s private data is dangerous and unethical.
  2. Using that data to intentionally and directly manipulate user’s thinking is even worse.
  3. All of the major centralized social media companies have been proven to either allow these illicit information campaigns or coordinate them directly. TikTok is the focus right now but Sophie Zhang exposed Facebook for doing exactly what TikTok has been exposed for recently. Can you recall any meaningful consequences for Facebook? Do you think Facebook is now safe to use?
  4. It’s clear that most political leaders are either too ignorant, too corrupt, or too inept to meaningfully legislate against these problems.
  5. The concerned public can’t shut Pandora’s box. No one is coming to save us from big tech or the monied interests and nation-states that wield it.
  6. The concerned public can’t easily and legally audit the platforms big tech builds because they are closed and proprietary.
  7. Personal choice is not enough. Not using centralized social media increases personal safety but does little to curb its influence otherwise.

  These are listed by order of intuitive acceptance rather than importance. I find it aids the conversation.

  The best reasonable answer to these problems I’ve seen proposed is for the public to create an open and decentralized alternative that’s easier to use and provides a better user experience.

  Will that kind of alternative be a force for pure good? I’m not sure. To your point: I’m not convinced social media of any kind can be more than self-medication to cope with modernity. Then again I’ve had incredible and meaningful conversations with close friends after passing the bong around and spent time on Facebook/Reddit, and now Mastodon/Lemmy/etc, doing the same. Those interactions were uplifting and humanizing in ways that unified and encouraged all involved.

  I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. We need to take care of each other, refuse pure hedonism, and protect the vulnerable (and we’re all varying degrees of vulnerable). At the same time: humans aren’t happy in sterile viceless productivity prisons. Creating spaces for leisure which do no harm in the course of their use isn’t just a nice idea… It’s necessary for a functional and happy society.