PSA: @anotherusername has userscript recording all posts the moment they're posted
-
@gąska I'm willing to concede pretty much all of that. But in fairness, I wouldn't have done it if I had any reasonable doubts as to whether you might care for that specific post. And I won't again, not without asking first at least.
-
@anotherusername if you were Polish, you'd know this double 'y' kinda makes me look stupid, and that it might be a bad thing. But really - I have deleted it; isn't it enough clue that I might not want it seen?
-
@masonwheeler said in PSA: @anotherusername has userscript recording all posts the moment they're posted:
@gąska said in PSA: @anotherusername has userscript recording all posts the moment they're posted:
@masonwheeler I don't expect to have absolute control over spread of an information. I expect people to understand that if I delete something, it's because I don't want it to be seen. For various reasons you shouldn't want to know. I expect people to respect my will not to make deleted material seen by not talking about it, and if they happen to have a copy, not reuploading or otherwise sharing it. I really don't see how doing otherwise can ever be seen as good, with the obvious exception of whistleblowing.
Yeah, that sounds pretty absolute to me. As in, you seem to think that there is absolutely no reason, other than whistleblowing, that someone else's judgment about whether this information should be shared could possibly be more valid than your own. And I object to that sentiment on general principle.
And you sound like a kook when you do so.
-
@blakeyrat said in PSA: @anotherusername has userscript recording all posts the moment they're posted:
then it's a dick move. That's the important thing.
It's possible to not do anything legally, or even ethically, wrong and still be a dick.
I agree with that sentiment (and what @Gąska is saying).
A real-life analogy might be walking around with a tape recorder on all the time. Sure, whatever you record is stuff you've heard and that you can repeat later and in itself, it's not illegal to repeat what you've heard (excluding what is intended from the start as confidential information, but I'm talking here about e.g. chit-chat with your mates).
But it certainly is a dick-move and you can be pretty sure that most of people you'll interact with will not like it. I would not. That has nothing to do with law or GDRP or "right to be forgotten" or whatever. Just basic decency.
-
@Gąska said in PSA: @anotherusername has userscript recording all posts the moment they're posted:
@tsaukpaetra I think we're getting too meta.
I think we could all use a little bit of metta.
-
Posit: WTDWTF is running on a fairly chunky server.
Posit: @anotherusername 's userscript is not.Assumption: WTDWTF can handle hundreds, if not thousands, of edit requests in a short period of time. There doesn't even need to be much traffic. Just edit, change a character, post.
Theory: @anotherusername 's script (and/or computer hosting that script) can not handle that amount of "record this edit" requests coming down his pipe in a short period of time.
Therefore: If you want to DoS his script, you now know how.
-
@Lorne-Kates said in PSA: @anotherusername has userscript recording all posts the moment they're posted:
"record this edit" requests
At one point in time I was considering making a bot that would repeatedly edit a post to keep data "live" (and also subvert the "Can't edit a post after X time"). But, was too to actually follow through with it.
-
@Lorne-Kates You'd more likely break sockets for everyone else. And I'm not sure my userscript even gets the "record this edit" messages. I mean, theoretically it should, but the socket is broken more often than it's not, so they don't come through.
@Tsaukpaetra I don't think that would work. The "Can't edit a post after X time" is probably based on the time you posted, not the last time you edited.
-
Let's just setup a group with just @anotherusername and a spambot, and create a special category visible only to this one group that the spambot would spam in.
-
@Gąska let's not and say we did.
-
@Gąska Or just make a new thread (I've heard that they're free?) and spam-post to it with a bot. Every one will ignore that thread and you'll still get the same end-effect.
Which is to say, nothing at all. If @anotherusername was both motivated enough to write his script in the first place, and still feels it's more useful to him than the discomfort it causes to others (or if he just doesn't give a fuck about that), any trivial measure to disrupt his script will just cause him to add one exception or simple workaround to it.
Basically, if he didn't stop when people told him that wasn't nice, I don't think we can really force him to do so otherwise.
-
@remi said in PSA: @anotherusername has userscript recording all posts the moment they're posted:
Every one will ignore
Yeah, sure. That's exactly how it'll be. We won't get any complaints about running a spambot whatsoever. His posts totally won't get quoted in other topics all the time.
Which is to say, nothing at all. If @anotherusername was both motivated enough to write his script in the first place, and still feels it's more useful to him than the discomfort it causes to others (or if he just doesn't give a fuck about that), any trivial measure to disrupt his script will just cause him to add one exception or simple workaround to it.
Basically, if he didn't stop when people told him that wasn't nice, I don't think we can really force him to do so otherwise.
Maybe his current operational costs are zero. Maybe he'll drop it when it jumps to one dollar per year.
-
@Gąska said in PSA: @anotherusername has userscript recording all posts the moment they're posted:
Yeah, sure. That's exactly how it'll be. We won't get any complaints about running a spambot whatsoever. His posts totally won't get quoted in other topics all the time.
Maybe, but in any case, it won't bother his userscript more than the time it'll take him to edit it to ignore that thread, so it's pointless (which was my point, really).
Basically, if he didn't stop when people told him that wasn't nice, I don't think we can really force him to do so otherwise.
Maybe his current operational costs are zero. Maybe he'll drop it when it jumps to one dollar per year.
My guess is that whatever you're proposing here will just force him to spend a couple of minutes updating his script to ignore whatever measure you'll implement (might be posts from a given user, in a given thread etc.). Sure, he'll still get all the events reaching his machine, but the way I understand it is that those events happen anyway, and for everyone (not just for him), it's just the way works.
If you want to raise his operational costs (i.e. the time/space the userscript takes to actually process the events), you have to make it so that your "fake" posts cannot be automatically distinguished from a genuine post to avoid any simple automatic filtering. Good luck with that. Especially since, to avoid being called a spammer, they have to be at the same time not visible to other users, but in such a way that this "not being visible" can't even be used by the script to identify that. In itself, that seems impossible (he would just have to create a different user a cross-reference which posts that user sees compared to his script running under, I assume, his normal user).
So really, once you accept that NodeBB sends all those events to everyone (again, which is how I understood things, but maybe I'm wrong?), there isn't much you can do to avoid people doing stuff based on these events.
-
@remi I guess you're right. Legal action seems like the only recourse.
-
@Gąska said in PSA: @anotherusername has userscript recording all posts the moment they're posted:
@remi I guess you're right. Legal action seems like the only recourse.
@pie_flavor ? When did you switch accounts?
-
- Reply from @Tsaukpaetra
- No upvote
- One downvote
Wow, must have really struck your nerve.
-
@Gąska said in PSA: @anotherusername has userscript recording all posts the moment they're posted:
- Reply from @Tsaukpaetra
- No upvote
- One downvote
Wow, must have really struck your nerve.
Nah, wasn't me.
-
@Tsaukpaetra you ruined the joke!
-
@Gąska said in PSA: @anotherusername has userscript recording all posts the moment they're posted:
@Tsaukpaetra you ruined the joke!
I'd like to ruin other things too, but they don't often talk to me...