Total Retard War: Lessons of War - Taking the tactics of Honeycomb.io's Field CTO Liz Fong-Jones and making them available to everyone.

[Monopoly Supporter]

Wouldn't be surprised if they utilized the same "marketing" tactics as Cogent aka scraping contact information to network operators from the Internet and harassing them endlessly until they buy their shitty services.

Are you telling me that you don't want your ISP to be a Frankenstein amalgamation of several dozen failed telcos' wireline divisions kept alive with infusions of Venture Capital money?

 

[Napoleon III]

I make this post knowing that is easy to come up with ideas but hard to actually implement them.

The archetypal answer to increased risk is decentralization. Is there some sort of way to implement a Peer to Peer service for KF? Doesn't have to be all the traffic but if users could send stuff to other users it provide some benefit. Even if it was only something like text which is data-light it could be very useful.

Does that even make sense as a viable idea or is it stupid?

If it does make sense would it be reasonably possible to implement?

 

[dumbledore]

Are you telling me that you don't want your ISP to be a Frankenstein amalgamation of several dozen failed telcos' wireline divisions kept alive with infusions of Venture Capital money?

No, their network quality is dogshit and I would never do business with them. Speaking of network quality, Cognet appears to be one of spammer's favorite networks.

With 13,5% of all IP's announced by them used for spamming. https://cleantalk.org/blacklists/as174
And we are talking about their own ASN, not their downstreams of which there is shit ton used exclusively for malicious and illegal purposes.

Cogent and Hurricane Electric are also fan favorite networks for sending spoofed(IP Header Modification) DDoS attacks because they don't even attempt to block it.

 

[Cyberia Sec]

More links that haven't been jannied yet. Just like previously, they were found 100% legally.

Got a dork to share?

 

[dumbledore]

Got a dork to share?

It was from urlscan.io. I have a feeling there is a billion of them on VirusTotal, someone with VT Enterprise could make a query.

 

[Cyberia Sec]

It was from urlscan.io. I have a feeling there is a billion of them on VirusTotal, someone with VT Enterprise could make a query.

Ah oke, will monitor.

 

[gateway]

it seems like most of their editors are either troons or troon supporters that do absolutely nothing else with their lives aside from police wikipedia edits.

Here is some interesting data I have gathered. Please note that the category pages advise users against stating their faggot status on their profiles to avoid trolls.

 

[glue eater]

Theoretically it's open to edit but their rules are absurd. If you create an account and try to edit almost any page while using a VPN, you're automatically banned. You also generally need clout. If you try to register to Wikipedia and just edit a page, especially a page of any living person or contemporary organization, your edits will be under immediate scrutiny and you will likely find yourself banned immediately and your edits reverted.

I've even had incidents where there was clearly a mistake, and I went up the chain to find admins relevant to that article active in that project. They will literally revert your comment off their talk page like you're some sort of insect to be discarded and they won't dignify you with a reply.

So on its face it's open, but in reality there's an incredibly sophisticated bureaucratic web of trust that means you don't get shit and go fuck yourself.

Wikimedia as a whole needs to be utterly destroyed.

On the flip side, if you have managed to worm your way in and rack up a couple of thousand edits, you can basically insert any disinfo you want as long as you add a source (the source doesn't even have to support what you say, just add it for appearances sake). There are some deep undercover trolls who have trolled wikipedia for like half a decade, every day filling articles with completely made up shit, and I have witnessed completely mind boggling shit stay up infinitely because its made up by someone who's trusted. And I'm not talking about like "Polish uprisings in the 1600s" that gets 2 views a day, but vital articles with +1k views a day.

 

[X Prime]

Institutions have rules, and institutions can be made to follow their own rules. They can be made to follow their own rules via using formal processes. In Rules for Radicals, when Saul Alinsky talks about making an institution follow its own rules, he's talking about triggering its official procedures, not so much shrieking impotently about its hypocrisy.

I think that while this sounds good on paper, this does not actually necessarily work anymore.

Back when Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals, institutions were staffed by people who believed in fairness, equal protection under the law, and the basic humanity of people they did not fully agree with. Such people would of course follow official procedures to the hilt because they believed in the inherent rightness of the result produced by those procedures.

Now institutions are increasingly staffed by partisan ideologues who only believe in power. Hence why you have AUPs with fuzzy catch-alls and so on, at the risk of oversimplifying it's fundamentally no different from forum moderation in places like Something Awful. I mean, in both cases it's done by troons or troon-chasers, so one similarity is immediately apparent.

Institutions very well might not follow the official procedures if they don't like you, unless a bigger fish decides to force them. And in that case they might very well only pretend to follow them for the sake of appearing compliant to the bigger fish. They'll pretend to lose or have never gotten needed documentation, suddenly require that every i be dotted and t crossed when in other cases they wouldn't, and so on. They'll make following the procedure suddenly become ponderous and excruciating as a punishment.

And you will never be able to call them on it successfully because it will be assumed they are acting in good faith when any honest observer knows they are not - but the key word is "honest," and besides that there's no proof.

In sum, Rules for Radicals boils down to the naked abuse of better people's good faith all the way down. When there are no better people anymore, it doesn't work. That doesn't mean you don't try, of course, but I would assume success is now a pure dice roll a lot of the time, similar to playing legal roulette in drawing the right judge for your case.

 

[Naples1]

In sum, Rules for Radicals boils down to the naked abuse of better people's good faith all the way down. When there are no better people anymore, it doesn't work.

This is supported by receipts Null kept for the Cogent bullshit. Their "process" for Hays-tier content control was to label a few images on the farms as something shocking like revenge or child porn - which was also untrue - then keep referencing those "findings" after Null made that same content inaccessible. They even tilted their hand when Null was hit up by one of their sales reps and, after bringing their employee's crusade up, the rep's response didn't mention porn once, just along the lines of "are you still against people being trans? If so, I won't bother you anymore."

 

[Fabio Socialist]

Never forget that wikipedias mods said that if the Consensus was the Earth was flat, then that is what Wikipedia would publish.

https://kiwifarms.st/threads/the-great-twitter-meltdown-of-2021.93623/post-12204434

When Jimbo Wales was interviewed by Slashdot, he actually conflated anonymity with falsely claiming credentials you didn't actually have. It was one of those surreal moments where you experience this feeling of dissociation because you can't believe what your senses are telling you could possibly be real. Nobody could actually be this stupid. Especially not such a smart Internet guy. But no, he really is as fucking retarded as the day is long.

 

[Null]

You guys are misinterpreting Saul Alinsky.

His point was: be annoying. People like tomorrow to be like today and for today to be like yesterday.

The reason why trannies win is that complying with trannies is the easiest way to stay in the good graces of the mainstream and to keep tomorrow more like today.

If you make today annoying and tomorrow more annoying, more annoying than not giving trannies what they want, you win.

Why do you think troons took over Wikipedia and other shit? They have no life. They can be annoying forever. They can do shit for free all day.

 

[Softdrinks]

Hello everyone i have a nice special early christmas gift. I shared this gift with josh via email and now i will share it with you, its called how i got a DIY HRT sites host to drop them. heres how i did it. they originally used webzilla but now they have changed cause they being webzilla are scared shitless of cogent.

1. find a site that clearly violates some kind of AUP
2. use BGP tools to find their host and their abuse email.
3. make sure you give them all the info they need listed on their abuse page,
4. send a email. using all info they ask and link everything needed. multiple links help extremely as they usually only take a precursory glance
5. Remember to sound like you're worried and in good faith, being extremely rude will not help you at all.
6. heres the most important part. if they are using cogent tell them in the end of the email you already contacted cogent communications or their tier1/upstream and are waiting for a email back from them. and give them your email as contact info at the bottom.
7. ???? (wait for response)
8. profit, site is offline

the response from webzilla was "Hello, The reported website was blocked by the customer." see example of https://bgp.tools/prefix/80.78.16.0/20#connectivity, they originally had to only use one asn which was webzilla then to their tier one but now they have to use two. i will upload a template of my email below to webzilla. you do not have to email cogent at all for this. Please remember to use a burner and VPN when sending these emails. Remember these guys think they can moderate the whole internet. They wanted this. Please remember to use this only for good Samaritan reasons, if you have any questions feel free to ask. We didnt start the fire.

 

[Shazam]

I'm just awaiting the inevitable server migration to DOS BBS forum. The only way to avoid jewish ISP companies.

"HONEY! GET THE FUCK OFF THE PHONE I'M DIALING INTO THE FARMS!"

Yeah, I know you can connect to BBS' over the Internet without dialing into them over a phone line now but it's funnier this way.

 

[Harvey Danger]

You guys are misinterpreting Saul Alinsky.

His point was: be annoying. People like tomorrow to be like today and for today to be like yesterday.

He was really saying to create intransigent minorities, before that term was formalized. Alinsky's focus was on how that minority can subvert institutions or systems with set rules.

The generic idea can apply to corporations without taking them over (like the kosher/halal food markings mentioned in the article). But I think what you're facing is something different, a world where captured education institutions produced ideologues for decades, saturating the job market with people who think they aren't activist ideologues.

Corporations weren't taken over by an intentional movement, but by the end result of a massive Overton window shift in the educated classes. Because the new ideology was intransigent, it only took a small number within the power ranks of corporations to enact sudden change.

The reason why trannies win is that complying with trannies is the easiest way to stay in the good graces of the mainstream and to keep tomorrow more like today.

If you make today annoying and tomorrow more annoying, more annoying than not giving trannies what they want, you win.

Why do you think troons took over Wikipedia and other shit? They have no life. They can be annoying forever. They can do shit for free all day.

TBH I don't think Rules for Radicals applies as much once you've captured and become the system. From there it's just crass power dynamics. The revolutionary left Alinsky was writing for never really has a real plan for when they win, which is why their captured institutions fall apart.

The subverted Wikipedia is just basic Soviet style information control. They establish a chokepoint for information flow, slap democratic or non-authoritarian marketing on it, and run it with an iron fist. It's digital Maoism, 15+ years into it.

 

[Null]

The subverted Wikipedia is just basic Soviet style information control. They establish a chokepoint for information flow, slap democratic or non-authoritarian marketing on it, and run it with an iron fist. It's digital Maoism, 15+ years into it.

"Comrade Wales, how do you ensure quality of information on Vikipedia?"
"We only allow trusted sources."
"Which ones?"
"Pravda."

 

[Standardized Profile]

Back when Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals, institutions were staffed by people who believed in fairness, equal protection under the law, and the basic humanity of people they did not fully agree with. Such people would of course follow official procedures to the hilt because they believed in the inherent rightness of the result produced by those procedures.

Even back then, getting an institution to follow its own rules was difficult. Wilson wrote somewhere:

Government agencies are not billiard balls driven hither and yon by the impact of forces and interests. When bureaucrats are free to choose a course of action their choices will reflect the full array of incentives operating on them: some will reflect the need to manage workload; others will reflect the expectations of workplace peers and professional colleagues elsewhere; still others may reflect their own convictions.

This is just as true of private entities. The decision-makers at Cogent, etc., may choose a course of action because it complies with their institutional rules. Or they may choose a different course of action in order to minimize their workload, or look good to others, or because they think it is morally right.

How do you influence these decision-makers to take a certain course of action? You have to make one incentive override the others, or you have to stack as many incentives as you can in your favor. Forcing the enemy to play by their own rules is important, but it's only one incentive, and only one of Alinsky's 13 rules.

 

[Harvey Danger]

"Comrade Wales, how do you ensure quality of information on Vikipedia?"
"We only allow trusted sources."
"Which ones?"
"Pravda."

The only way to crack the Catch-22 is to get a sympathetic article published by a mainstream "trusted source". That removes the biggest objection during edit wars about fringe topics like this. But that won't happen, for all the reasons already listed, and because mainstream journalism remains thoroughly captured. Also I'm sure there's some stupid rule interpretation they'd invent to exclude even the NYT, if it somehow got a favorable KF article published.

But it's nice to dream about the flame war that would cause on the Talk page.

 

[inception_state]

The subverted Wikipedia is just basic Soviet style information control. They establish a chokepoint for information flow, slap democratic or non-authoritarian marketing on it, and run it with an iron fist. It's digital Maoism, 15+ years into it.

Have you seen their "reliable sources" page? It's basically left-wing good, right-wing bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

That results in ridiculous scenarios like Caraballo's Wikipedia page, where the House hearing was removed because no "reliable sources" covered it. So the editorial bias of left-wing publications flows downstream to Wikipedia and dictates what gets included and what doesn't, by design.

 

[The Ugly One]

I think that while this sounds good on paper, this does not actually necessarily work anymore.

Back when Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals, institutions were staffed by people who believed in fairness, equal protection under the law, and the basic humanity of people they did not fully agree with. Such people would of course follow official procedures to the hilt because they believed in the inherent rightness of the result produced by those procedures.

Belief in fairness is not why office drones follow procedure. Belief in the essential humanity of all people is not why office drones follow procedure. Office drones follow procedure, not because they believe in any high-minded ideals, but because in a large institution, following procedure is how you avoid getting fired. The iron law of bureaucracy is that if you followed procedure, you didn't do anything wrong.

For example, let's say I have a rule in my company that every trouble ticket must be reviewed by a manager before being closed out. Do you think I'm going to break the rule because someone I find annoying filed a ticket? Because the complaint in the ticket is gay and retarded? Because the person filing the ticket belongs to a group of people I've decided shouldn't have rights? Fuck no. Closing out a ticket without review could get me fired. I don't care about anything as much as I care about my paycheck, so you could file a trouble ticket that just says "pee pee poo poo" five thousand times, and I'm forwarding that shit to my manager to close out.

It's like how people have exploited DMCA on Youtube. Or how Russell Greer makes himself an enormous pain in the ass. Of course, you need jobless autists who have nothing better to do than file complaints and be annoying, as mentioned upthread.

A successful example is some friends and I created a reportfag DM group on Twitter. We'd pick lefty Twitter targets and start hunting through their tweets for things to flag. Using no-no words, saying something forbidden about Holy Transsexuals in 2010, etc. Twitter at the time had automated algorithms that kicked in and triggered manual review if there were enough reports, and we got the system to temp ban lots of lefty Twitter accounts, even scored quite a few permabans.