Your analogy doesn’t work at all.
If one of the core harms is the removal of income and tracking, ad blockers fall into this category. Ad blockers very explicitly remove these things. The harm is not “Honey stole my income” it’s “Honey removed my tracking and Honey added their tracking.” Read the Legal Eagle case.
I am genuinely concerned about this because Legal Eagle’s suit is directly tied to manipulating URLs and cookies. The suit, even with its focus on last click attribution, doesn’t make an incredibly specific argument. If Legal Eagle wins, this sets a very dangerous precedent for ad blockers being illegal because ad blockers directly manipulate cookies and URLs. I haven’t read the Gamer’s Nexus one yet.
Please note that I’m not trying to defend Honey at all. They’re actively misleading folks.
other given statements
Perhaps this is our fundamental misunderstanding! I am operating under these statements
P: I have nothing to hide Q: I should not be concerned about surveillance
In my opinion, everything after this is OP’s proof, ie we have no given statements ergo you calling out modus ponens is meaningless because, from our foundations, we could theoretically have ~P^Q, P^~Q, P^Q, and P^Q. Our foundation provides no context on how P and Q interact, and, as both of us state, albeit for different reasons, we cannot conclude anything about their interaction.
Sure! Let’s go back to foundations. The foundation of modus ponens is, quoting your source,
If P -> Q and P, then Q
In order for this to work, we must have both P -> Q and P. Will you please quote OP that shows we have P -> Q, as I have asked from the beginning, instead of making personal attacks? Alternatively, if I’m missing something in my foundations, such as “P -> Q can always be assumed in any basic symbolic context without proof,” educate me. As you have bolded, we can use modus ponens if and only if (necessary and sufficient) we have its requirements. If we don’t, per your source, we cannot use it to prove anything.
From your source, we must first have P -> Q. You have not demonstrated that. Sure, if we assume that P -> Q, then P -> Q. That’s a tautology. OP’s goal is to prove P -> Q. I’ve said this multiple times as did OP. Your consistent sharing of a truth table is a necessary condition for P -> Q but it is not sufficient. If P -> Q, then the truth table is valid. That’s modus ponens. You still gotta show (or assume like you have been) that P -> Q.
To quote OP,
P -> Q
I will be providing a proof by counterexample
In other words, P -> Q is an unproven hypothesis. If P -> Q, then your truth table is correct. If we assume P -> Q, then your truth table is correct. But propositional calculus unfortunately requires we prove things, not just show things that will be true if our original assumption is true.
You didn’t read OP, regularly refused back anything up, and came in with ad hominem. When others vote in a way that disagrees with you, you claim a conspiracy. I think the only person here acting in bad faith is you. I have tried to expand OP’s understanding of their proposal and you have only attacked people. You have attempted to insult me multiple times. Granted, I did take a swipe at you begging the question, so you could argue some bad faith was merited, but you saying I’ve never done logic while missing me explaining to you the point you’re suddenly trying to make (“necessary but not sufficient”) continues the poor student metaphor.
I’m sorry you found “good luck” to be patronizing. Does “have fun” work?
Still failing…
Reread OP. All you did was provide a truth table that is necessary but not sufficient. Given A and given B, with literally nothing else, prove A -> B.
You postmodernist you
Now this is a logical fallacy. While many might agree it’s a proper response to Quine or Kripke, I think it’s just kinda sad. Good luck!
How so?
OP said that, given A and B, they would prove A -> B via negation, meaning the truth table you built does not yet exist and must be proved.
It is rather…
OP is not trying to use language, OP is trying to use propositional calculus. Using language unattached to propositional calculus is meaningless in this context.
This is textbook modus ponens
No, it’s not. Textbook modus ponens is when you are given A -> B. We are given A and B and are trying to prove A -> B. Never in any of my reading have I ever seen someone say “We want to prove A -> B ergo given A and B, A -> B.” I mean, had I graded symbolic logic papers, I probably would have because it’s a textbook mistake to write a proof that just has the conclusion with none of the work. As the in group, we may assume A -> B in this situation; OP was taking some new tools they’ve picked up and applying them to something OP appears passionate about to prove our assumptions.
how dare you
I was responding to OP. Why are you getting mad at me instead of getting mad at OP? OP brought propositional logic to a relativistic conversation. My goal was show why that’s a bad idea. You have proven my point incredibly well.
You made the same leap that OP did.
[I]t is logically accepted that there might be other reasons, even unknown.
No, it’s not. That’s what I’m calling out. This doesn’t follow from A or B and requires further definition. While you’re using to explain case b, OP tried to use it to explain case c. In both cases, you are assuming some sort of framework that allows you to build these truth tables from real life. That’s where my ask for a consistent formal system comes from.
In your case b, we have not(I have something to hide) and (I am not concerned about surveillance). Since OP is not saying that the two are necessary and sufficient, we don’t really care. However, in your case c, where we have I have nothing to hide and not(I am not concerned about surveillance), both of you say we are logically allowed to force that to make sense. It’s now an axiom that A and not B cannot be; it has not come from within our proof or our formal system. We waved our hands and said there’s no way for that to happen. Remember, we started with the assumption we could prove A -> B by negation, not that A -> B was guaranteed.
If you’ll notice my last paragraph in my first post basically says the same thing your last paragraph says.
I’m not sure how you prove by negation in this case just via modus ponens. Care to enlighten me? I opened with something that doesn’t follow so that would be a great place to start.
Give me a consistent formal system with a list of theorems to prove OP’s conjecture and I’ll show you how we have gaps in the system. My analytic philosophy is pretty rusty; I think there are a few 20th century folks you can start from for this.
Some may have nothing to hide, but still be concerned about the state of surveillance
This is where your proof falls apart. It follows from nothing you’ve established and relies on context outside of our proof, which does not work with propositional logic. Another commenter goes into a bit more detail with some pre-defined axioms; with the right axioms you can wave away anything. However you have to agree on your axioms to begin with (this is the foundation of things like non-Euclidean geometry; choose to accept normally unacceptable axioms).
A rigorous proof using propositional calculus would have to start with the definitions of what things are, what hiding means, what surveillance is, how it relates to hiding, and slowly work your way to showing, based on the definitions and lemmas you’ve built along the way, how this actually works. Understanding how to build arithmetic from the Peano Axioms is a good foundation.
However, by attempting to represent this conversation in formal logic, we fall prey to Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems, which means something beyond the axioms in our system has to be based on faith. This arguably leads us back to the beginning, where “nothing to hide” and “state surveillance” fall under personal preference.
Please note that I think “nothing to hide” is bullshit always and do not support heavy surveillance. I like the discussion you’ve started.
The study talks to 16 Mastodon admins who got to say what they thought Mastodon did. It’s not really a study, it’s just a survey. Being posted here is just confirmation bias. For Mastodon to increase citizen empowerment, there has to be something measured and a control group that isn’t on Mastodon.
From the abstract
In this paper, following a pre-study survey, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 16 Mastodon instance administrators, including those who host instances to support marginalised and stigmatised communities
You really have to read beyond the headline. This isn’t Reddit.
Undercover FBI agents later made contact with Yener and convinced him they wanted to help him carry out an attack, it says. They tracked Yener throughout the summer and into the fall.
How the fuck this isn’t entrapment has confused everyone for decades. A convincing argument can be made that the current US right-wing terrorist problem only exists because 75% of those chucklefucks are informants interested in entrapment so it doesn’t surprise me they’ve expanded outside the white power movement.
This is pretty far from a proof of any variety. I think the spirit is there and the ideas are great. Spend a little more time on the execution, maybe tie in some Quine, and I think you’d have something.
What the actual fuck? Reddit, Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat are mass social media platforms. Bluesky is as well because it’s sure as fuck not federated. There has always been a crew of people that only use one platform vs another going all the way back to BBSs. The headline isn’t supported because we’re not going back to the forum days, leaving mass social media behind, and the article just describes the MySpace vs Facebook vs Friendster conflict oh wait the Facebook vs Instagram vs Twitter conflict oh wait the Instagram vs Snapchat vs Vine conflict oh wait the Reddit vs Facebook vs X conflict oh wait… As someone that was never much on Twitter and who yelled at lots of people who kept supporting fascism during the X transition, I feel like journalists really overindex on people that use Twitter.
I have more important things to do than to lobby the government to send a tax bill.
Why would the CEO be dumb enough to say this in an interview? If your business model is fucking people, your CEO has to have a cool head when asked if he’s fucking people!
Did we read the same article? DNS-01 challenges require updates to DNS. This means you need an API for your DNS. This means you now have to worry about DNS permissions in your application cert workflow. We’ve just massively increased blast radius! Or you could do it manually but that’s already failed.
All of this is straightforward with infrastructure-as-code. While I don’t struggle with that, I’ve watched devs and sysadmins both stare blankly at this kind of thing for days at a time.
If you’re using any work-related anything to post “anonymously” or talk to journalists, don’t. That Blind redirection is chilling yet it’s well within the capabilities of employers. The right way to talk to journalists like 404 is to find their anonymous contact details eg Signal using your own internet connection and your own device. Work computers can be monitored. Traffic on work computers or work VPNs can be monitored. Company email usage can be monitored. Company phone usage can be monitored. You don’t need to be incredibly private with a VPN over tor and anonymous services; you just need to not use company resources. Whether or not this should be legal is a different story; you just gotta know you have fuck all for privacy on company resources.
I’ve only heard of Blind in passing; that corp email makes it too close to Glassdoor for comfort and it’s very clearly not private with that requirement.
Mullenweg is an original WP dev along with Mike Little. He’s fucking batshit and completely in the wrong but he did create the FOSS.
I use uBlock Origin to remove tracking. I also manually remove tracking. Privacy Badger is a tool that works to explicitly do this kind of tidying.