SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 11 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Journal by kolie
whats up soylentils. any good meta discussion of soylent we care to have?
-- other than actual doxxing or CSAM etc don't flag posts here thx --
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Never reveal your best argument.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Friday October 17, @11:38PM (35 children)
How would a spoiler tag protect against doxxing, or links to CSAM (we have received them in the past)? Anyone could still read the material that potentially places a person at risk. The most recent doxxing occurred only a few days ago. Just because some information has been compromised in the past doesn't mean that the information is now no longer considered doxxing.
Once we know how the flagging will be employed I can look at how the community can have full visibility of the flagged material - but only where that does not permit the content to be published when there is a requirement to remove it. And I have said all this before so why is it necessary to repeat it again?
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 18, @12:28AM (13 children)
Is there a "requirement" to remove content? Or is this just the assertion of a mad censor? This is the question. What exactly is being removed from view?
(Score: 2) by kolie on Saturday October 18, @12:36AM (2 children)
That's what a banned user entails. Post from that user are being flagged. I'm happy to reveal flagged post contents, and where there is sensitive details I will provide a summary of the sensitive content where appropriate.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 18, @09:37AM (1 child)
How do you know it is the banned user? Asking for a friend, which I understand is a good thing to say when prompting an AI.
(Score: 2) by kolie on Saturday October 18, @04:03PM
Well we use normal investigative techniques to assign attribution to submissions. We have a great deal of information and correlation and the tools available make this a relatively quick and effective task.
(Score: 4, Informative) by janrinok on Saturday October 18, @12:38AM (9 children)
Usually posts by the only banned user. If you check here [soylentnews.org] (which I know that you have already done) you will see some examples:
They are often abusing individuals or so off-topic to be nothing more than attempts to disrupt a discussion.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 18, @03:04AM (8 children)
I'd like to say these are very childish comments, but they are also quite heavy satire. Burning witches? Pretty old school. Totally agreed those are worth flagging as disruptive. One problem is enforcing rules upon subjective content and context, while allowing other situations which are functionally identical.
When do false positives, discrimination, become worth it? What sigma delta might ruin your life when "the computer said no."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kolie on Saturday October 18, @04:42AM (7 children)
Its not necessarily the content and subjectivenesss of it - its the attribution to a known banned user, content aside.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 18, @10:01AM (1 child)
I see that janrinok the censor is censoring very pertinent information. Someone has reported that aristarchus is dead. We await independent confirmation of course, but why would janrinok seek to suppress this news? Have to say, not unexpected. Always thought that he and Runaway would kick the bucket at about the same time.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 25, @10:48AM
Just the other day, I heard that aristarchus was dead, and I thought, janrinok will be most pleased, his nemesis is no more! Wonder what the cause of death was, spam moderation, IP blockage, or ass-fixiation? Hard to guess with someone of such an age. But things should be more peaceful around here, without all janrinok's running about trying to squelch the old buzzard! Where should we send flowers? (Dias de Muertos is close, right?)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 18, @01:48PM (4 children)
Sure, but there have been mistakes and I was specifically bringing up automated methods. The world is increasingly handing responsibility to AI systems and at some point something bad will happen and people will shrug and blame the computer. It will be 10x worse than corporate BS.
As for your exact point there have been users that were falsely accused and the defense was it sounded like a banned user. That is subjective content discrimination and referring to a banned user shows how easily bias can enter the equation.
My point was more about society and how allowing AI to make these subjective decisions makes a black box method of discrimination that allows malicious abuse to be blamed on software "bugs." The banned user situation here is just an example of how subjective decisions will have errors even with a human making the calls, and I wanted to tie that into a larger point about the perils of automated moderation of humans.
(Score: 2) by kolie on Saturday October 18, @05:12PM (3 children)
Good thing there is a human in the loop here. Use of automation in this system is only in alerting and correlating data.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 18, @07:29PM
I see the politically and racially biased spam modding continues apace. Nice job, SN!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 19, @02:36AM (1 child)
Sure, but the same point applies. False positives happen. At least with a human there is someone to reason with if they are capable. The record so far is not great.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 20, @08:29PM
Just raising the possibility, if the dread aristarchus is actually dead, ALL the flaggings are cases of false positives? Do we have any proof the null hypothesis is to be rejected?
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 24, @11:19PM (20 children)
Not too bright, are we, janrinok! When someone reports that some cretin resides at
if it is not P. Sherman [buzzfeed.com], it is not doxxing, it is a reference to the Finding Nemo [imdb.com] 2003 PiXar movie. This remains the case even if the nefarious doxxer specifies, Sydney, Arkansas [wikipedia.org]. Remember our mantra: "Soylentils are friends, not food!"
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday October 25, @12:46AM (19 children)
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday October 25, @11:03AM (4 children)
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday October 25, @11:09AM (3 children)
You have used this technique several times before. You dox a name in one post, part of the address in another, a State or Country in another etc. Then when all the information has been passed, the final one is often incitement to some form of abuse or threat to the person you are doxxing.
You have passed partial doxxing information 3 times over the last 2 weeks against 2 different community members.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 26, @12:28AM (2 children)
Muskogee, OK.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 26, @12:32AM (1 child)
Merle
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 26, @12:36AM
Haagard.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 26, @03:06AM (3 children)
Thrice now janrinok has ignored kolie's request that there be no flagging in this journal. Kind of a Peter, ain't he?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday October 26, @05:55AM (2 children)
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 2) by kolie on Sunday October 26, @04:48PM (1 child)
Yea the comments in question should rightly be flagged here, although they are a bit silly and obviously attempts at doing stupid shit to win stupid prizes....
| 1422103 |
Are you suggesting ####, otherwise known as ####,, actually does live at ####, in ####,? I find no such address on Google maps, and so I cannot deliver any Amazon packages to this address. Try calling him at Jenny's number, 867-5309, you can look up the country code and area code yourself.
|
| 1422117 |
####, lives at One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA, Not sure what the Zip Code is. Santa is at P.O. Box 1, North Pole, Alaska. Just ask, I can dox some more!
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 26, @09:36AM (1 child)
Wow, Janrinok has lost it! Called out for three times ignoring kolie's request to not flag in his journal, janrinok has flagged that, too! Must be that he thinks any discussion of doxxing is equivalent to doxxing, even though doxing is not illegal in Oregon, or Britanny, for that matter. So, can someone rein in the Mad Editor, and rescind his rude flaggings, so we can continue with a rational discussion of issues with Soylent Phoenix?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday October 26, @09:56AM
PII is information that enables a person to be identified and is defined in the US as:
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 26, @08:24PM (5 children)
Fictional doxxing is just as illegal as the real thing? But it is hard to direct persons or armed authorities to a place that does not exist! Seems jan has joined the Lost Boys, Second star on the rigth, and straight on till morning, right-o! Waiting for the Penny Lane to drop. There is a house, in New Orleans, they call the Rising Sun! 221B Baker Street is the residence of the person you seek! Or try 1150 W Addison St. Chicago, IL 60613, you know who lives there?
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 26, @10:38PM
Blues Brothers? Wanted fugitives in a dozen states! "She caught the katey, and left me the mule to flag!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 27, @06:11PM
Your mom lives there.
(Score: 5, Touché) by kolie on Monday October 27, @06:17PM (1 child)
Your entire argument is a reductio ad absurdum that deliberately conflates an ontological problem (is this real?) with a pragmatic one (how must we act?).
You are placing an impossible epistemic burden on operators, demanding they be omniscient polymaths who can instantly discern veridical data from fictional trivia across all global cultures. Your "well-known" examples are merely artifacts of your own cultural priors.
The only prudent and scalable rule is simple: if a post is prima facie doxxing, it is treated as such. The operator's duty is not to become a scholastic debating the reality of your data, but to act prophylactically-at no detriment to any legitimate discourse. Your post is a disingenuous attempt to rules-lawyer a policy whose intent is perfectly clear.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 30, @11:55PM
Newer systems that rely on "AI" to process tickets may eventually be able to filter out this BS but for now they, and humans, have difficulty telling the difference between a real statement and one of pure fantasy.
Your human brain bolstered by your memories and life experience grant you the ability to tell this is not real. Great. The address given here appears to be real. No, I don't know who lives at 1150 W Addison and a quick internet search offers no answers. If this is a satirical reference then it falls flat.
No, we're not there yet. Really. We're not. The current generation of LLM / AI tech may help but until we can definitively tell fantasy from reality and have a reliable method for problem investigation in real time we are stuck with what we have. Humans. Fallible humans. People capable of taking facts literally and not recognising humor intermeshed with reality. So no, keep it in your pants, don't post stuff that looks real, and be nice.