I don’t think that’s how it works? It’s the client application that has the key for the end to end encryption, not the server. I don’t think you need to trust the matrix server you use? I could be wrong, I don’t know matrix particularly well.

Yeah, that’s fair enough, though I’m not sure it’s very different from malicious instances creating normal user accounts?

You can see when users from an instance are all suspiciously voting the same way at the same time regardless of whether they are usernames or IDs.

There’s lots of legitimate users that only vote but never post so doing it based on that doesn’t seem very effective?

The second problem is solved using public key cryptography, the same way that you can’t impersonate someone else’s username to post comments. Votes and comments are digitally signed (There would need to be a different public key for voting to maintain pseudonymity though).

How about pseudonymous as a compromise? Votes could be publicly federated but tied to some uuid instead of the username. That way you still have the same anti spam ability (can see that a user upvoted these things from this instance at this time) but can’t tie it directly to comments or actual user accounts without some extra osint.

It might be theoretically possible to correlate the uuids with an account’s activity and dox the user in some cases, especially with some instances having a single user, but it would be very difficult or impossible to do on larger instances and would add an extra layer. Single user instances would be kind of impossible to make totally private anyway because they can be identified by instance.

It does sound very strange. What kind of anti-China content would ever help a student’s application process? Most of the application documents are about things like English language competency, visa requirements and prior qualifications, not political opinions.

It’s not that it’s on the 172.16.0.0/12 range. That’s totally normal and used for all kinds of stuff.

It’s that it’s in 172.16.42.0/24 which is the default dhcp settings for a wifi pineapple. It’s the /24 mask given on the .42 that’s a little suspicious because that’s not a common range for anything else.

Being assigned one of those specific 253 hosts with that subnet mask would definitely make me think twice.

Pretty sure it’s an autocomplete (like copilot or something)

They were typing

progress != “Hold”

And the ai autocomplete suggested

progress != “Hold onto your butts!”

Hence why the completion part is in grey (it’s a suggestion)

It sounds like they controlled for that and did a bunch of different statistical models to break it down by different demographics and economics. That said, I’m finding it hard to find the original paper. It’s not linked to in the article or any of the AP versions I found. Nature has a link to Google scholar but that comes up with nothing and it’s not referenced in the researcher’s publications on the Oxford site yet. Maybe it went to the press already but the actual article isn’t out yet?

It does sound very broad though and difficult/impossible to draw any causation. Still interesting through as it does kinda show that any negative causative link that might exist between well-being and internet use is not strong enough to outweigh other positive factors that are correlated with it (even non-causative ones).

I was going to come up with something fun and clever to keep it going but the next line of the real song starts with “cream-coloured ponies” so I think we should probably just leave it here after all.

There are some of the internet’s things that we don’t need to enumerate.

They ruined Linux!

No, that’s “Monk”

A manc is a place where you can go to deposit your money and get home loans and stuff.

By the sounds of it their entire video team left. So not half of the channel gone, but all of it…

“aborigines” is not a great word to use these days. It’s generally seen as pretty offensive to Indigenous Australians as it’s a bit dehumanising and comes from colinisers who treated people like animals.

Better to go with “First Nations people”, “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people” or “Indigenous Australians.”

But yes, they’ve been treated (and in many cases continue to be treated) pretty horribly.