I find it far more ironic that they are called Reclaim the Internet.
I am dating myself, but I remember the Internet. It’s rather ironic too that the actual Internet, literal and figuratively free internet, was always doomed from the start, just like AI is effectively doomed in terms of it being some kind of productivity tool or amazing thing you can use to build your own thing, because the logical conclusion is very bad for most people, including the technorati types here that think themselves above it and immune.
If you’re shocked and surprised by the way there Internet was maneuvered into the surveillance prison Flock made itself the poster child of at the hands of Mr Langley, take that trajectory and lay it over AI, but only at exponential rates. You don’t have to believe me, it won’t matter either way, it’s happening, short of the Soviet style implosion of the “American” empire.
Maybe once the planet has been made uninhabitable to biological life there will be an AI robot cybernetic splinter group trying to “reclaim humanity”.
How would a soviet style implosion of the US work in real life? A civil war is far more likely and we already have historical precedence for that.
And your AI robot cybernetic splinter group thing sounds a lot like the biblical story of Noah than anything that's based on science or you know facts.
The US and particularly its armed forces don’t look at all like the 1800s, so another civil war of that nature is not possible. Sabotage, terrorism and political violence could be a new form of civil unrest, but full out civil war without a divided military with entire divisions defecting, is very unlikely.
Yes, we are unlikely to get to a point of an 1800s civil war, of course. But I mean, if things do get that bad, we cannot rule out a divided military as well. How that would work in practice, I'm not sure, since, as you mentioned, armed forces work these days differently as well, and defection like that might not even be feasible, I guess.
Overall I would say civil war is more likely (even given how unlikely it is) than just a robotic uprising that will root out all humanity and make the world unfit for biological beings as the original comment implied.
Nuclear war is a civilization-ending tool that AI could realistically exploit. It would only need to hack a weaker nuclear nation to send a ICBM our way, sabotage communications and let our draconian nuclear war strategy do the rest. There’s a book by Annie Jacobsen that explains from a plausible military perspective how this could rapidly unfold. It was poorly plagiarized by Netflix and turned into a mini series but the book is much more better at scaring the s out of you.
It would also end the AI. Not to say it couldn’t happen though, if it thought an apocalypse could somehow instrumentally help it fill its monthly paperclip quota.
A war wont happen because Americans are too lazy. Just look how the cities are built, the vast majority simply refuses to walk. To control the population one only has to deny them fuel, and everything else freezes. In older times, everyone was a really hard worker, look at the American civil war, millions in both armies walked thousands of kms. Theres no way a fraction of Americans could or would do that.
You can't host the internet on your machine, or download a "Google" or "Meta" but you can download a local model. So I don't think AI will lead to more centralization. Besides local models, the interface itself - prompt based steering - is eminently more open ended that apps or websites ever were. Cloud or local, you get more control now as a user.
> You can't host the internet on your machine, or download a "Google" or "Meta" but you can download a local model.
You can very much host websites on your machine (not the whole internet, but then again you can’t host the most powerful models either) and you can very much download a Wikipedia or Internet Archive.
But most people never will. This idea that everyone will soon be using local models while frolicking happily in the fields is a pipe dream. Besides, local or not, these models can already be harmful in ways the internet took decades to approach.
A local model has more data than Wikipedia and the Internet Archive is way too large to download on a consumer machine.
A local model works even if the Internet is perfectly firewalled or straight-up down. However, you still need electricity and eventually replacement parts, so in an apocalypse may not work either.
A local model has more data than Wikipedia and the Internet Archive is way too large to download on a consumer machine.
A local model works even if the Internet is perfectly firewalled or straight-up down. However, you still need electricity and eventually replacement parts, so in an apocalypse may not work either.
You do understand that was an example, right? Did you know there are other websites you can download? Anna has one that is pretty big and full of information. I’m pretty sure the AI labs know about it too.
> the Internet Archive is way too large to download on a consumer machine.
The Internet Archive isn’t a single zip download. You understand you can pick and choose what you want to download, right? And also, that it was just another example of many?
But the Internet and IA aren't controlled by you. They may be censored or taken down without anyone going near you, but not the local model (as long as you have access to electricity and your hardware doesn't break before you have access to replacements).
It is possible that models are only the byproduct of what frontier labs are doing. In other words, what you call AI is just a log, a trace of what the real AI, for which only frontier labs have access to, did.
This is exactly why I believe LLMs are fundamentally divergent from the trajectory of internet service path we have been on. It allows us to create space and disconnection from an otherwise tethered experience.
But you cannot train an open weight model by yourself, and maybe there could some distributed training net ran by thousand of volunteers around the world in the future, but until we get there we will still be tied to BigCo (American, Chinese or wherever in the world) decisions.
You would need institutions to do this? What do we have besides global megacorps with the resources for this? Universities perhaps training models for their local catchment?
We'll probably see a few middle-tier countries like France or Japan training their own national LLMs that they can control. Even if it's expensive, this will eventually be just as critical to national sovereignty as having nuclear weapons. They don't want to be completely dependant on the USA or China.
For decades, people ran word processors and graphics editors locally.
Now it’s in the cloud on a damn webpage.
With recent RAM and storage price disruptions, I feel like we’ll go to go back to an equivalent of everyone having a dumb Wyze terminal with the real “computer” in the cloud… Only difference is the dumb terminal will have color, be wireless, and portable.
I’d like to think that people will move back to native, but sadly there’s only one viable platform for native app dev, Apple. I base that statement on the highly fragmented Linux ecosystem and the fact that Microsoft are appear to be actively hostile to windows users. I leave Android out of the picture because of the continual and legally proven trust breaches of the owner.
It does suck. Though Android’s owner does appear to be afraid of Graphene OS so maybe there’s hope.
Yep, this is because for decades Apple has looked for ways strong local clients can add value in the form of bespoke hardware and software capabilities, while Microsoft has looked for ways commoditised generic clients can extract value.
Fragmented doesn't mean you can't make native apps.
GTK, QT, FLTK or TK apps coexist peacefully on linux the same way apps made with Cocoa, JUCE or whatever own internal proprietary toolkit apps run and coexist on MacOS.
Linux is not really fragmented anymore, there is a lot of distros but they're all compatible with each other. Flatpak solved app distribution and systemd standardized the lower levels. If you build something on Ubuntu it will almost definitely work on Fedora and Arch with no code changes. 10 years ago that was impossible.
ARPAnet definitely wasn't built "by" the military.
"For" the military is close enough, although "defense research" would probably be more accurate than "military" given that initial users were centered around large universities.
From the start the DoD had issues with the free and open culture from the userbase that skewed towards academic types, later splitting off into a restricted MILNET after a few years.
> Should anyone deviate from the EU leftist narrative they will be fined, disconnected, imprisoned or all three.
If there's one thing that distinguishes leftist regimes it corporate friendly property law policies to enable free markets.
> The result is of course that the internet will split in two. The day-job internet, centered on earning money, and not on expressing thoughts. Then we have the darknet where ideas can be discussed freely, without the government monitoring you. Sadly this internet will never be accessible to the common man, who in time, will be taught never to discuss politics and ideas in public. We will get the kitchen table culture of the soviet union, all thanks to the EU now building out a massive surveillance machine with ID-verification, and chat control (which will eventually pass, be it under that name, or any other).
That sounds better to me? Civil society spaces shouldn't be for making money and vice versa. Surely we can't look at what's happened to twitter where you basically get corporate sponsorship for rage baiting on the internet and think that's an improvement? The most effective political action recently has been hyperlocal neighbourhood groups getting mad and turning up to data centre meetings en-masse and letting local representatives know that they are all know where they live. Spouting off on the internet has been weaponised to force people into inaction and is easily corralled as there are so few of these mega platforms and they're easy to buy and manipulate centrally.
leftist != Liberal. And the EU leftists aren't liberal in any real way. That's why terms like left and right don't mean anything outside of a specific place and time and even then, its just shorthand. If they were liberal, none of this would be happening.
Being liberal is hard but saying you are liberal is a great way to hide socialist and authoritarian tendencies. And that's the problem. If they were actually liberal, they wouldn't be censoring the Internet. Liberals believe in free speech, socialists don't. Its a big tell as which kind of leftist you are.
I am from EU, leftist, socialist and liberal (the left parts), and I can assure you, (a) most leftists (90%) are as liberal and antiauthoritarian as it gets, and (b) we are as powerless to change these things as you are.
Possibly, if you choose to believe me, things can change, but it's on you.
Liberal doesn't mean supporting liberty, it means some interpolation between supporting free markets (neoliberal means just this one), and pretending that as long as we just follow the established institutional norms everything is fine and there is no need for radical change. It's synonymous right now for "centrist" - note that political labels drift over time.
Liberalism has both economic (free market) roots and political roots. The first "leftists" were the French revolutionaries and they wanted (political) freedom as well. The reason liberalism is in the "center" is because both left and right tried to appropriate it. (Although I think liberalism, in the sense of individual freedom, is a distinct value from other values such as conservative/authoritarian or socialist/communal.)
Individual freedom absolutism is best refered to as "libertarianism" right now. Which, btw, is a label the right appropriated and the left gave up.
This terminology change is mostly limited to anglosphere. Outside of that 'liberal' is still commonly used for economic-right low-intervention position.
Depends on country. Here in Czechia, Communist party is one of most socially conservative one, while conservative christian party is center-left economically. Social democratic party, when it was relevant, was also pretty socially conservative, which makes sense considering their working class demigraphics.
In the EU the leftists have no significant powers so not sure why we even talk about them here. The EU right now is ran by mostly centrists and right-wingers.
>Maybe not from the start, but definitely since the EU sunk its teeth into it. We can look forward to ID-controls for everything online, and monitoring of what we write.
Yes, they just made a big step in that direction by requiring age verification on social media for everyone :(
> Should anyone deviate from the EU leftist narrative they will be fined, disconnected, imprisoned or all three.
That is not happening though. But they are building the machinery to do things like this.
I don't think we'll ever see an EU law specifically mandating disconnection / imprisonment of individuals who disagree with the prevailing narrative.
An EU law that puts large fines on social media companies for doing entirely unrelated things, like, let's say, personalized advertising? A law that makes it almost impossible to operate profitably in the EU if enforced, but one that the government can enforce selectively? A law that lets the EU commission brand certain companies as "Gatekeepers" if it so wishes, while leaving others unbranded? A law that could, perhaps, be enforced far less strictly against companies which, due to their outstanding moral principles and care for humanity, choose to ban (or, better, algorithmically deboost) certain individuals, or maybe entirely voluntarily act as concerned citizens and report them to law enforcement, with no official duty to do so? Now that sounds a lot more believable.
> An EU law that puts large fines on social media companies for doing entirely unrelated things, like, let's say, personalized advertising?
But this is not about fines on companies. It is to force age sniffing onto people.
The state sniffs for ID here. That's the new part.
> care for humanity, choose to ban (or, better, algorithmically deboost) certain individuals
I think in France there is the three-strikes crap law. After that people are forbidden to access the www.
This is terrorism by a state. And censorship. Typical for a dictatorship. The label
democracy is just equally as fake here as Putin's Duma "elections" auto-awarding the genocidal dictator with "now I can mass-mobilize people and kill many thousand people more".
But sadly they are building the perfect infrastructure to support a genuinely totalitarian state. If, in a future election somebody gets elected who wants to put this structures to use, I guess then we'll be in trouble!
> requiring age verification on social media for everyone :(
This is not the end goal though.
The end goal is forcing this onto everyone. Show ID, show what
you visit, otherwise you will not be able to access the internet.
That is the real agenda. They just use salami steps, by trying
to convince people that this is about the kids. It was never about
the kids and never will be - kids are just the excuse, similar to
other laws claiming protection against terrorisms. These are all lies.
The real things that kill the internet is tech bros who learned you can make money with the internet and ofcourse AI which will make sure the internet becomes bots who communicate with other bots.
Sigh. Web. Not Internet. Why is this distinction so hard to make on a WEB site dedicated to technology?
The reason I keep repeating this whenever I see this is because I've seen idiotic mislabeling and mischaracterization materialize as idiotic legislature or idiotic activism based on the former. Someone invented the term "AI datacenter", and now there's a swiping movement of idiots fighting... datacenters. Same as with 5G before it.
Please. Please. Don't blame the Internet for something it has absolutely nothing to do with. Your misattributed criticism is going to be amplified by thousands of automatic and semi-automatic morons and, who knows, maybe people will start cutting cables or attack ISP crew as a result.
The same thing would happen on any platform. Social media diverged from the web a while ago - accessing it through web is like accessing Usenet through Google Groups. Its native environment is the corresponding non-web phone apps.
Not on any platform. The platform needs to have certain characteristics that enable it.
The platform needs to be a monopoly or an oligopoly. A highly distributed platform would be a lot more resilient to the problems created by modern social media because it would be too hard for a single organization to manipulate the news reported by thousands of independent publishers.
The platform needs to financially sustain itself in such a way that the users don't directly contribute to it, otherwise it would be way too easy for users to "vote with their wallet".
The platform use should be allowed (or even encouraged) by state or other important service providers, thus making its use mandatory for the holdouts / those who would normally not use it on conscientious grounds.
Perhaps there are other aspects that I've overlooked.
Phone apps are, in general, an even worse alternative than the original Web because of being either completely closed-source, or even if not, not really allowing simple viewing and modification of the program behavior by the users. The way they are created and distributed amplifies the monopoly aspect and the government / service provider sanctioning aspect.
But, I think, that the problems we see now in Web can be partially addressed technologically and partially legislatively. It doesn't have to be this bad.
On technological level, if social media was available as an Internet application, i.e. as an additional service from your ISP, which would remove the need to sustain it with ads, it would make it less interesting for companies like those that run modern social media platforms to manipulate it.
On legislative level, there should be some form of anti information monopoly laws that would make it illegal to have such an outsized effect for social media platforms and would allow the court to require that a platform is split into multiple platforms. The laws that assign responsibility for the published content and its distribution should also address the problem of mis- and disinformation proliferation through such platforms. Even up to the point that they make it impossible for such platforms to exist (today it's common to blame the lack of moderation on the poor quality of content).
I should hope you remember the Internet, it's still there. It may come as a surprise to you, but the whole reason the WWW works is because of the Internet, that's how you're able to see this web site!
Let me add a few more layers just for some fun and profit :-D
Here[0] is an archive.org page which archives an archive.is page which archives the original article about internet censorship of an archive site that might require an archive of an archive site to read (given that people of spain cant now view archive.is in the first place or might have some difficulties doing so)
(If someone is perhaps interested and wants to see me talk more about what this is, then please read the blogpost that I had made for more info: <a href="https://smileplease.mataroa.blog/blog/htmlpipe-and-how-we-can-use-it-for-archive/" rel="nofollow">https://smileplease.mataroa.blog/blog/htmlpipe-and-how-we-ca...)
> "Temporarily Offline Internet Archive services are temporarily offline. " What did you DO
It seems that all of internet archive was down and I don't think that it was because of me (I hope), maybe just some other issues and some sort of just a chance that internet archive got offline at the exact same time that I had shared this thing here.
but when I had opened up hackernews and I read your comment, I genuinely felt myself also as what did I DO.
It is back again now for what its worth, whew what a relief but folks please remember to donate to internet archive for its posterity :-)
Thanks, I will try to look more into this. I think it might be related to number of connections of piping servers but I am a little perplexed about it on how this is possible on an archived link.
Can you please tell me more details so that I can hopefully try to fix it in the future. Did you try to open up the archive.org link of the website or the website itself (which is just a gh page: <a href="https://serjaimelannister.github.io/htmlpipe/?https://ppng.io/2YdN9_3" rel="nofollow">https://serjaimelannister.github.io/htmlpipe/?https://ppng.i...)
I would like to know more so that I can hopefully fix that for the future, have a nice day :-D
Been using the archive page firefox extension for a year or two. Yet now it looks like a total war against this resource was waged and it's no longer a good resource for archiving.
archive.is is the best substitute. For some reason people here won't accept that. They think the internet is still a calm cooperative place like the olden days.
My office's "net nanny" blocks archive.is as a "Russian site". However, archive.ph (use the same link across all the various sites) is not blocked (yet).
"Anyone know of any good reliable substitutes?"
For me, archive.today, archive.is, archive.md, archive.ph, etc. are _not reliable_ for a number of reasons
But some archive.today users who comment on HN cannot seem to accept that archive.today may not work for everybody else
NB. Archive.today is not a "substitute for archive.org". Archive.today does not do www crawls
As for archive.org, I know of a number of alternatives but each is generally less reliable and/or less comprehensive than archive.org
Comman Crawl, i.e., downloads from data.commoncrawl.org, is reasonably reliable but not as comprehensive as archive.org. CC is not a reasonable substitute for archive.org's CDX service. The CC CDX endpoint, index.commoncrawl.org, historically has been easily overwhelmed and unreliable
As for archive.today alternatives (no crawls, only user-submitted URLs), ghostarchive.org seems well-designed but not used much. No CAPTCHA, HTTPS and Javascript are optional and HAR files are provided. Whether it gets blocked like archive.today sites I do not know
NB. Archive.today users may be using archive.today not as an archive but as a lazy man's solution for "paywalls" (Javascript annoyances)
Where that's the case, comparsions to archive.org or other archives that are derived from crawls are inappropriate
We used to give presentations about the average life of pages on the internet before it 404ed. It was cited from a SciAm article which was offline at the time and the only way to get the stat was via. the mirror on the Wayback Machine.
Works fine for me, also Spain, Vodafone as the ISP.
Edit: eeh, that's a different site than the one mentioned by the submission, why it wouldn't work?
Edit2: Also, the error is wrong and server-side. If your ISP is trying to block the website, you'll get either a tls error that the certificate isn't matching, or for non-https sites you get redirected to the scary "You're contributing to something illegal blah blah".
> "502 Bad Gateway" (I'm in Spain)
Here you go, this should work: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20260920074416/https://serjaimelannister.github.io/htmlpipe/?https://ppng.io/2YdN9_3" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20260920074416/https://serjaimel...
(an archive.org page which archives an archive.is page, might take some time to load though)
The "random guy" referred to in your allegation is, btw, not a random guy, but someone who was trying to help the US intelligence agencies imprison the owner of archive.is a la Snowden or Assange.
Well I kind of get why he really doesn't want to be identified, because of all those copyright infringements. The moment he steps in the West, he could be arrested.
But despite this I feel like what he did was very counterproductive to this goal. If he did nothing, people would just forget about it. Wikipedia would still use his service because they don't want to deal with copyright.
Besides if western intelligence really wants to find this guy, they could probably do it without the journalist's help.
Given Wikipedia’s decline—people are reading AI-generated answers instead of Wikipedia, and they certainly aren’t clicking on the archived links in the articles’ references—and the rising cost of equipment, what do you see as the motivation for the archive to continue sponsoring Wikipedia in this risky way, which exposes the copyright issues far beyond niche communities like HN? The form of attention, that Wikipedia brings back (FBI, Finnish "bloggers" from WikiTravel, ...) is certainly undesirable, and no one would want to pay for it out of their own pocket.
The archive guy actually called Wikipedia on this lol.
Like if a very infamous site, KiwiFarms can have their own archiving engine, why cant multimillion dollar site like Wikipedia can't? He's absolutely correct that Wikipedia is a freeloader that doesnt want to deal with copyright.
However, I'm not sure if the archive guy is paying it out of his own pocket. It's a massive ad-free site servicing tons of requests everyday, and it has a very impressive technical abilities.
That has to be quite expensive, like he must've some seriously rich sponsors. And his sponsors might be okay with Wikipedia using the site, but this is all just my guess lol.
In the end, it's also perfectly valid for him to refuse servicing Wikipedia: it's his site.
The one-world government and the CIA are loving all this FUD being spread about archive.is. No, don't access information we don't want you to! Because of... uh... DDOS, that's it!
Look, I'm glad archive.is exists as a resource for preserving paywalled news but it wasn't the one world government that made him DDOS some random guy and tamper with archived content.
It was completely counter-productive too, several orders of magnitude more people learned about the blog post via the DDOS controversy than ever would have without it. And plants a seed of doubt that anything they archive could have been silently modified to satisfy a personal grievance.
I live in Spain and can still enjoy access to this site. This is enforced by major ISPs (Vodafone among others), so anyone sane just opts for a local ISP (if they have a choice)
According to this site <a href="https://bandaancha.eu/articulos/gobierno-tiene-lista-web-oficial-11138" rel="nofollow">https://bandaancha.eu/articulos/gobierno-tiene-lista-web-ofi..., they use SNI (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication)
That superuser thread from 2018 (it's ECH now not ESNI) isn't much help
Although I do like the comment at the bottom that states the problem as disabling SNI not encrypting it. Encrypting SNI/ClientHello is over complicated, which is why ESNI was flawed and (allegedly) why Cloudflare disabled it. The solution to the plaintext SNI problem is to not send SNI (I don't send it unless necessary)
There is an alternative non-TLS method of encrypting traffic, per packet, that allows hosting multiple websites on the same IP. I use it in the homelab. It proves that TLS and SNI is not the only way
There's also a popular archive of www content that does not require SNI. It's older and larger than Cloudflare
The problem with software like Firefox is that it automatically sends SNI to every website no matter if SNI is required or not. The superuser thread mentions a Firefox add-on that no longer works. If Firefox is open source then why not just edit the code and recompile
Clearly, Mozilla is not going to provide a solution. It would rather add support for ESNI and then ECH as opposed to giving users an option to diable sending SNI
Mozilla is pro-surveillance advertising, Cloudflare is pro-surveillance advertising
Fortunately, not every HTTPS website is hosted on a shared IP, not every HTTPS website requires SNI. And popular web browsers derived from Mozilla and Google are not the only user agents
A couple of ways to not send SNI
1. Use an SSL client, e.g., openssl s_client, bssl client, etc.
2. Use a local forward proxy, e.g., stunnel, haproxy, etc.
Even if Cloudflare enables ECH across all the websites it controls, and we have been waiting for years, there is still the issue of SSL termination by Cloudflare. For many of those sites, all the TLS traffic, not just the SNI, is available as plaintext to Cloudflare and to whomever Cloudflare, a US corporation, may or must share it with
Differs by the ISP you have, I've seen DNS manipulation, IP filtering, hostname filtering, and HTTPS interception so far. Obviously most websites use TLS today so it mostly "fails" so people see certificate errors rather than their scary "You're contributing to breaking the law blah blah blah". Sometimes just straight up timeouts, resets, or generic connection failures.
Browsers should change that page to say "someone is hacking your internet" with red background and giant warning sign, when certain certificates are received.
Nor on Vodafone for me, 3rd biggest ISP in the country. Guess that leaves us with Orange or possibly Digi as the second one that maybe actually has implemented the block?
Orange is not blocking it on my fiber yet but it is on my mobile connection.
The strange thing is I use the same DNS on both (which exits on my fiber connection, even when I'm on mobile), so they must be blocking it another way.
Digi is not blocking archive.today on fiber or mobile, I just tried it (Sept 21 ~11AM). However they do block a bunch of the libgen URLs, so I assume they'll eventually block this too, it's just a matter of time.
I have a major ISP and cannot access directly, but in the last few years an VPN has become part of my routine (otherwise I wouldn't even be able to work normally during football matches) so I just click some random country and it's fixed.
Most likely is that you are using Cloudflare DNS: <a href="https://jarv.is/notes/cloudflare-dns-archive-is-blocked" rel="nofollow">https://jarv.is/notes/cloudflare-dns-archive-is-blocked
I use the default one from my carrier, but I've previously tried Google and other DNS servers to no avail. For some reason the site doesn't even open for me through a VPN.
Not a "beef", but rather some petty blogger spun up a campaign to dox the owner of archive.today, who you can imagine has their reasons not to publish their identity.
The ddos was against the doxxer. My "wires" ain't "crossed", I guess we just have different priorities. Idk what I'd do if I had reasons to fear for my life, so I can't blame the archive.today owner and the site still works as intended.
Overall, the hate campaign against archive.today is based on them messing with a doxxer, and I cannot morally support doxxing of anyone. So please, serve me the evil ddos version of archive.today when I visit, and I'll turn a blind eye. :3
One reason could be that they archive stuff that people want gone. Some of those people want their stuff gone more than the others.
Another reason could for example be tied to their identity, which we do not yet know, as they have not [yet] been doxxed.
(Also, idk what pronouns they use, some people in the thread seem to refer to them by "he", is that actually something they refer to themselves as on the record, or rather a typo or 'borken Engrish'?)
peri-cl · · focus · HN ↗
Lio · · focus · HN ↗
An article about internet censorship of an archive site that requires an archive site to read!
That’s Brilliant! :D
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
tyrabound · · focus · HN ↗
I am dating myself, but I remember the Internet. It’s rather ironic too that the actual Internet, literal and figuratively free internet, was always doomed from the start, just like AI is effectively doomed in terms of it being some kind of productivity tool or amazing thing you can use to build your own thing, because the logical conclusion is very bad for most people, including the technorati types here that think themselves above it and immune.
If you’re shocked and surprised by the way there Internet was maneuvered into the surveillance prison Flock made itself the poster child of at the hands of Mr Langley, take that trajectory and lay it over AI, but only at exponential rates. You don’t have to believe me, it won’t matter either way, it’s happening, short of the Soviet style implosion of the “American” empire.
Maybe once the planet has been made uninhabitable to biological life there will be an AI robot cybernetic splinter group trying to “reclaim humanity”.
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
altmanaltman · · focus · HN ↗
And your AI robot cybernetic splinter group thing sounds a lot like the biblical story of Noah than anything that's based on science or you know facts.
DANmode · · focus · HN ↗
because the empire is too large to control all of its interests.
Could have been avoided - too much money to be made in the various stages of it not being avoided.
tedggh · · focus · HN ↗
altmanaltman · · focus · HN ↗
Overall I would say civil war is more likely (even given how unlikely it is) than just a robotic uprising that will root out all humanity and make the world unfit for biological beings as the original comment implied.
DANmode · · focus · HN ↗
a96 · · focus · HN ↗
tedggh · · focus · HN ↗
simonh · · focus · HN ↗
MiroslavPokorny · · focus · HN ↗
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
MiroslavPokorny · · focus · HN ↗
visarga · · focus · HN ↗
spacebanana7 · · focus · HN ↗
latexr · · focus · HN ↗
You can very much host websites on your machine (not the whole internet, but then again you can’t host the most powerful models either) and you can very much download a Wikipedia or Internet Archive.
But most people never will. This idea that everyone will soon be using local models while frolicking happily in the fields is a pipe dream. Besides, local or not, these models can already be harmful in ways the internet took decades to approach.
armchairhacker · · focus · HN ↗
A local model works even if the Internet is perfectly firewalled or straight-up down. However, you still need electricity and eventually replacement parts, so in an apocalypse may not work either.
armchairhacker · · focus · HN ↗
A local model works even if the Internet is perfectly firewalled or straight-up down. However, you still need electricity and eventually replacement parts, so in an apocalypse may not work either.
latexr · · focus · HN ↗
You do understand that was an example, right? Did you know there are other websites you can download? Anna has one that is pretty big and full of information. I’m pretty sure the AI labs know about it too.
> the Internet Archive is way too large to download on a consumer machine.
The Internet Archive isn’t a single zip download. You understand you can pick and choose what you want to download, right? And also, that it was just another example of many?
armchairhacker · · focus · HN ↗
tedggh · · focus · HN ↗
enos_feedler · · focus · HN ↗
darkwater · · focus · HN ↗
rusk · · focus · HN ↗
nradov · · focus · HN ↗
rusk · · focus · HN ↗
pseudony · · focus · HN ↗
You couldn’t snapshot all, but you could definitely get a taste :)
BobbyTables2 · · focus · HN ↗
Now it’s in the cloud on a damn webpage.
With recent RAM and storage price disruptions, I feel like we’ll go to go back to an equivalent of everyone having a dumb Wyze terminal with the real “computer” in the cloud… Only difference is the dumb terminal will have color, be wireless, and portable.
And I really hope I’m wrong…
willtemperley · · focus · HN ↗
It does suck. Though Android’s owner does appear to be afraid of Graphene OS so maybe there’s hope.
simonh · · focus · HN ↗
prmoustache · · focus · HN ↗
GTK, QT, FLTK or TK apps coexist peacefully on linux the same way apps made with Cocoa, JUCE or whatever own internal proprietary toolkit apps run and coexist on MacOS.
tancop · · focus · HN ↗
klrefg · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
cgio · · focus · HN ↗
FearNotDaniel · · focus · HN ↗
dividedbyzero · · focus · HN ↗
qlte · · focus · HN ↗
"For" the military is close enough, although "defense research" would probably be more accurate than "military" given that initial users were centered around large universities.
From the start the DoD had issues with the free and open culture from the userbase that skewed towards academic types, later splitting off into a restricted MILNET after a few years.
abc123abc123 · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
Tanjreeve · · focus · HN ↗
If there's one thing that distinguishes leftist regimes it corporate friendly property law policies to enable free markets.
> The result is of course that the internet will split in two. The day-job internet, centered on earning money, and not on expressing thoughts. Then we have the darknet where ideas can be discussed freely, without the government monitoring you. Sadly this internet will never be accessible to the common man, who in time, will be taught never to discuss politics and ideas in public. We will get the kitchen table culture of the soviet union, all thanks to the EU now building out a massive surveillance machine with ID-verification, and chat control (which will eventually pass, be it under that name, or any other).
That sounds better to me? Civil society spaces shouldn't be for making money and vice versa. Surely we can't look at what's happened to twitter where you basically get corporate sponsorship for rage baiting on the internet and think that's an improvement? The most effective political action recently has been hyperlocal neighbourhood groups getting mad and turning up to data centre meetings en-masse and letting local representatives know that they are all know where they live. Spouting off on the internet has been weaponised to force people into inaction and is easily corralled as there are so few of these mega platforms and they're easy to buy and manipulate centrally.
hunterpayne · · focus · HN ↗
Being liberal is hard but saying you are liberal is a great way to hide socialist and authoritarian tendencies. And that's the problem. If they were actually liberal, they wouldn't be censoring the Internet. Liberals believe in free speech, socialists don't. Its a big tell as which kind of leftist you are.
js8 · · focus · HN ↗
Possibly, if you choose to believe me, things can change, but it's on you.
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
js8 · · focus · HN ↗
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
zajio1am · · focus · HN ↗
vixen99 · · focus · HN ↗
zajio1am · · focus · HN ↗
CursedSilicon · · focus · HN ↗
jeltz · · focus · HN ↗
welwala · · focus · HN ↗
Yes, they just made a big step in that direction by requiring age verification on social media for everyone :(
> Should anyone deviate from the EU leftist narrative they will be fined, disconnected, imprisoned or all three.
That is not happening though. But they are building the machinery to do things like this.
miki123211 · · focus · HN ↗
An EU law that puts large fines on social media companies for doing entirely unrelated things, like, let's say, personalized advertising? A law that makes it almost impossible to operate profitably in the EU if enforced, but one that the government can enforce selectively? A law that lets the EU commission brand certain companies as "Gatekeepers" if it so wishes, while leaving others unbranded? A law that could, perhaps, be enforced far less strictly against companies which, due to their outstanding moral principles and care for humanity, choose to ban (or, better, algorithmically deboost) certain individuals, or maybe entirely voluntarily act as concerned citizens and report them to law enforcement, with no official duty to do so? Now that sounds a lot more believable.
shevy-java · · focus · HN ↗
But this is not about fines on companies. It is to force age sniffing onto people.
The state sniffs for ID here. That's the new part.
> care for humanity, choose to ban (or, better, algorithmically deboost) certain individuals
I think in France there is the three-strikes crap law. After that people are forbidden to access the www.
This is terrorism by a state. And censorship. Typical for a dictatorship. The label democracy is just equally as fake here as Putin's Duma "elections" auto-awarding the genocidal dictator with "now I can mass-mobilize people and kill many thousand people more".
digikazi · · focus · HN ↗
But sadly they are building the perfect infrastructure to support a genuinely totalitarian state. If, in a future election somebody gets elected who wants to put this structures to use, I guess then we'll be in trouble!
account42 · · focus · HN ↗
trumpdong · · focus · HN ↗
zobzu · · focus · HN ↗
shevy-java · · focus · HN ↗
This is not the end goal though.
The end goal is forcing this onto everyone. Show ID, show what you visit, otherwise you will not be able to access the internet. That is the real agenda. They just use salami steps, by trying to convince people that this is about the kids. It was never about the kids and never will be - kids are just the excuse, similar to other laws claiming protection against terrorisms. These are all lies.
expedition32 · · focus · HN ↗
philipallstar · · focus · HN ↗
account42 · · focus · HN ↗
WarmWash · · focus · HN ↗
BlaDeKke · · focus · HN ↗
rpdillon · · focus · HN ↗
thesuitonym · · focus · HN ↗
Big government censorship and surveillance capitalism are actually right-wing ideologies.
catlikesshrimp · · focus · HN ↗
crabbone · · focus · HN ↗
The reason I keep repeating this whenever I see this is because I've seen idiotic mislabeling and mischaracterization materialize as idiotic legislature or idiotic activism based on the former. Someone invented the term "AI datacenter", and now there's a swiping movement of idiots fighting... datacenters. Same as with 5G before it.
Please. Please. Don't blame the Internet for something it has absolutely nothing to do with. Your misattributed criticism is going to be amplified by thousands of automatic and semi-automatic morons and, who knows, maybe people will start cutting cables or attack ISP crew as a result.
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
crabbone · · focus · HN ↗
The platform needs to be a monopoly or an oligopoly. A highly distributed platform would be a lot more resilient to the problems created by modern social media because it would be too hard for a single organization to manipulate the news reported by thousands of independent publishers.
The platform needs to financially sustain itself in such a way that the users don't directly contribute to it, otherwise it would be way too easy for users to "vote with their wallet".
The platform use should be allowed (or even encouraged) by state or other important service providers, thus making its use mandatory for the holdouts / those who would normally not use it on conscientious grounds.
Perhaps there are other aspects that I've overlooked.
Phone apps are, in general, an even worse alternative than the original Web because of being either completely closed-source, or even if not, not really allowing simple viewing and modification of the program behavior by the users. The way they are created and distributed amplifies the monopoly aspect and the government / service provider sanctioning aspect.
But, I think, that the problems we see now in Web can be partially addressed technologically and partially legislatively. It doesn't have to be this bad.
On technological level, if social media was available as an Internet application, i.e. as an additional service from your ISP, which would remove the need to sustain it with ads, it would make it less interesting for companies like those that run modern social media platforms to manipulate it.
On legislative level, there should be some form of anti information monopoly laws that would make it illegal to have such an outsized effect for social media platforms and would allow the court to require that a platform is split into multiple platforms. The laws that assign responsibility for the published content and its distribution should also address the problem of mis- and disinformation proliferation through such platforms. Even up to the point that they make it impossible for such platforms to exist (today it's common to blame the lack of moderation on the poor quality of content).
rpdillon · · focus · HN ↗
That's the name of the site covering the block.
KellyCriterion · · focus · HN ↗
AI helped me and thousandas of other people already to actually build their thing! :-)
thesuitonym · · focus · HN ↗
Imustaskforhelp · · focus · HN ↗
Here[0] is an archive.org page which archives an archive.is page which archives the original article about internet censorship of an archive site that might require an archive of an archive site to read (given that people of spain cant now view archive.is in the first place or might have some difficulties doing so)
[0]: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20260920074416/https://serjaimelannister.github.io/htmlpipe/?https://ppng.io/2YdN9_3" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20260920074416/https://serjaimel...
(If someone is perhaps interested and wants to see me talk more about what this is, then please read the blogpost that I had made for more info: <a href="https://smileplease.mataroa.blog/blog/htmlpipe-and-how-we-can-use-it-for-archive/" rel="nofollow">https://smileplease.mataroa.blog/blog/htmlpipe-and-how-we-ca...)
totetsu · · focus · HN ↗
Imustaskforhelp · · focus · HN ↗
It seems that all of internet archive was down and I don't think that it was because of me (I hope), maybe just some other issues and some sort of just a chance that internet archive got offline at the exact same time that I had shared this thing here.
but when I had opened up hackernews and I read your comment, I genuinely felt myself also as what did I DO.
It is back again now for what its worth, whew what a relief but folks please remember to donate to internet archive for its posterity :-)
1vuio0pswjnm7 · · focus · HN ↗
Imustaskforhelp · · focus · HN ↗
Can you please tell me more details so that I can hopefully try to fix it in the future. Did you try to open up the archive.org link of the website or the website itself (which is just a gh page: <a href="https://serjaimelannister.github.io/htmlpipe/?https://ppng.io/2YdN9_3" rel="nofollow">https://serjaimelannister.github.io/htmlpipe/?https://ppng.i...)
I would like to know more so that I can hopefully fix that for the future, have a nice day :-D
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
paul7986 · · focus · HN ↗
Anyone know of any good reliable substitutes?
GHanku · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
Tangurena2 · · focus · HN ↗
1vuio0pswjnm7 · · focus · HN ↗
For me, archive.today, archive.is, archive.md, archive.ph, etc. are _not reliable_ for a number of reasons
But some archive.today users who comment on HN cannot seem to accept that archive.today may not work for everybody else
NB. Archive.today is not a "substitute for archive.org". Archive.today does not do www crawls
As for archive.org, I know of a number of alternatives but each is generally less reliable and/or less comprehensive than archive.org
Comman Crawl, i.e., downloads from data.commoncrawl.org, is reasonably reliable but not as comprehensive as archive.org. CC is not a reasonable substitute for archive.org's CDX service. The CC CDX endpoint, index.commoncrawl.org, historically has been easily overwhelmed and unreliable
As for archive.today alternatives (no crawls, only user-submitted URLs), ghostarchive.org seems well-designed but not used much. No CAPTCHA, HTTPS and Javascript are optional and HAR files are provided. Whether it gets blocked like archive.today sites I do not know
NB. Archive.today users may be using archive.today not as an archive but as a lazy man's solution for "paywalls" (Javascript annoyances)
Where that's the case, comparsions to archive.org or other archives that are derived from crawls are inappropriate
ccgreg · · focus · HN ↗
Use our Parquet index.
It's also worth noting that archive.org downloads all of our crawl data and adds it to the IA Wayback Machine.
1vuio0pswjnm7 · · focus · HN ↗
1vuio0pswjnm7 · · focus · HN ↗
abc123abc123 · · focus · HN ↗
noufalibrahim · · focus · HN ↗
Jare · · focus · HN ↗
embedding-shape · · focus · HN ↗
Edit: eeh, that's a different site than the one mentioned by the submission, why it wouldn't work?
Edit2: Also, the error is wrong and server-side. If your ISP is trying to block the website, you'll get either a tls error that the certificate isn't matching, or for non-https sites you get redirected to the scary "You're contributing to something illegal blah blah".
jachee · · focus · HN ↗
Imustaskforhelp · · focus · HN ↗
Here you go, this should work: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20260920074416/https://serjaimelannister.github.io/htmlpipe/?https://ppng.io/2YdN9_3" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20260920074416/https://serjaimel...
(an archive.org page which archives an archive.is page, might take some time to load though)
(this uses htmlpipe, something I have made :-D)
yuppiepuppie · · focus · HN ↗
calgoo · · focus · HN ↗
cluckindan · · focus · HN ↗
sapphicsnail · · focus · HN ↗
latexr · · focus · HN ↗
KellyCriterion · · focus · HN ↗
dudisubekti · · focus · HN ↗
Vs
<a href="https://archive.is/2YdN9" rel="nofollow">https://archive.is/2YdN9
One has paywall, one doesn't...
Sorry man, people will keep DDoSing some random guy's blog. It's a service problem lol
RobotToaster · · focus · HN ↗
dudisubekti · · focus · HN ↗
sksking · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
dudisubekti · · focus · HN ↗
But despite this I feel like what he did was very counterproductive to this goal. If he did nothing, people would just forget about it. Wikipedia would still use his service because they don't want to deal with copyright.
Besides if western intelligence really wants to find this guy, they could probably do it without the journalist's help.
FreelanceWriter · · focus · HN ↗
dudisubekti · · focus · HN ↗
Like if a very infamous site, KiwiFarms can have their own archiving engine, why cant multimillion dollar site like Wikipedia can't? He's absolutely correct that Wikipedia is a freeloader that doesnt want to deal with copyright.
However, I'm not sure if the archive guy is paying it out of his own pocket. It's a massive ad-free site servicing tons of requests everyday, and it has a very impressive technical abilities.
That has to be quite expensive, like he must've some seriously rich sponsors. And his sponsors might be okay with Wikipedia using the site, but this is all just my guess lol.
In the end, it's also perfectly valid for him to refuse servicing Wikipedia: it's his site.
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
cluckindan · · focus · HN ↗
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
qlte · · focus · HN ↗
It was completely counter-productive too, several orders of magnitude more people learned about the blog post via the DDOS controversy than ever would have without it. And plants a seed of doubt that anything they archive could have been silently modified to satisfy a personal grievance.
Gud · · focus · HN ↗
FreelanceWriter · · focus · HN ↗
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
alkyon · · focus · HN ↗
apexalpha · · focus · HN ↗
alkyon · · focus · HN ↗
alkyon · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://superuser.com/questions/1346634/modern-browser-with-a-feature-to-disable-sni" rel="nofollow">https://superuser.com/questions/1346634/modern-browser-with-...
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
1vuio0pswjnm7 · · focus · HN ↗
Although I do like the comment at the bottom that states the problem as disabling SNI not encrypting it. Encrypting SNI/ClientHello is over complicated, which is why ESNI was flawed and (allegedly) why Cloudflare disabled it. The solution to the plaintext SNI problem is to not send SNI (I don't send it unless necessary)
There is an alternative non-TLS method of encrypting traffic, per packet, that allows hosting multiple websites on the same IP. I use it in the homelab. It proves that TLS and SNI is not the only way
There's also a popular archive of www content that does not require SNI. It's older and larger than Cloudflare
The problem with software like Firefox is that it automatically sends SNI to every website no matter if SNI is required or not. The superuser thread mentions a Firefox add-on that no longer works. If Firefox is open source then why not just edit the code and recompile
Clearly, Mozilla is not going to provide a solution. It would rather add support for ESNI and then ECH as opposed to giving users an option to diable sending SNI
Mozilla is pro-surveillance advertising, Cloudflare is pro-surveillance advertising
Fortunately, not every HTTPS website is hosted on a shared IP, not every HTTPS website requires SNI. And popular web browsers derived from Mozilla and Google are not the only user agents
A couple of ways to not send SNI
1. Use an SSL client, e.g., openssl s_client, bssl client, etc.
2. Use a local forward proxy, e.g., stunnel, haproxy, etc.
Even if Cloudflare enables ECH across all the websites it controls, and we have been waiting for years, there is still the issue of SSL termination by Cloudflare. For many of those sites, all the TLS traffic, not just the SNI, is available as plaintext to Cloudflare and to whomever Cloudflare, a US corporation, may or must share it with
1vuio0pswjnm7 · · focus · HN ↗
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
1vuio0pswjnm7 · · focus · HN ↗
embedding-shape · · focus · HN ↗
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
swiftcoder · · focus · HN ↗
embedding-shape · · focus · HN ↗
welwala · · focus · HN ↗
The strange thing is I use the same DNS on both (which exits on my fiber connection, even when I'm on mobile), so they must be blocking it another way.
gorbypark · · focus · HN ↗
schnitzelstoat · · focus · HN ↗
welwala · · focus · HN ↗
Al-Khwarizmi · · focus · HN ↗
schnitzelstoat · · focus · HN ↗
Fortunately, I already have a VPN anyway :)
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
rainelli · · focus · HN ↗
Anonyneko · · focus · HN ↗
RoryH · · focus · HN ↗
Anonyneko · · focus · HN ↗
eyya · · focus · HN ↗
trumpdong · · focus · HN ↗
eyya · · focus · HN ↗
remix2000 · · focus · HN ↗
u1hcw9nx · · focus · HN ↗
Fucker alters archive.today snapshots, uses the archive.today to do DDoS attacks.
<a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-archive-today-after-site-executed-ddos-and-altered-web-captures/" rel="nofollow">https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-a...
remix2000 · · focus · HN ↗
Overall, the hate campaign against archive.today is based on them messing with a doxxer, and I cannot morally support doxxing of anyone. So please, serve me the evil ddos version of archive.today when I visit, and I'll turn a blind eye. :3
jgwil2 · · focus · HN ↗
Toslink · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
remix2000 · · focus · HN ↗
Another reason could for example be tied to their identity, which we do not yet know, as they have not [yet] been doxxed.
(Also, idk what pronouns they use, some people in the thread seem to refer to them by "he", is that actually something they refer to themselves as on the record, or rather a typo or 'borken Engrish'?)
account42 · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
rhaps0dy · · focus · HN ↗
beezlewax · · focus · HN ↗