Lemmy has been a big part of it.

I’ve never been fond of paying big tech to spy on me. It has been getting gradually more expensive and more intrusive for years. Around the time I reached a breaking point, folks here helped me realize that digital sovereignty is possible.

One day I was just like, “Why does Google need to know when my lightswich is on?” And that was the start of it.

deleted by creator

You obviously understand the concept, given your very specific constraints. OP noted that the particular photo they took would need to be cropped or edited to protect their location.

This photo shows like 1% of a building, no cars, road, structures, or horizon.

Applying the rule “no outdoor photos of your location” covers all of these possibilities, making it a pretty good rule of thumb. Even if you are cautious, you could accidentally post some rare tree or background detail that gives up your location.

So we shouldn’t shame anyone for not posting photos they consider unsafe.

It is basically trivial at this point to connect an outdoor picture to a physical location. This sounds like basic online safety to me.

Fun fact: Monday is the only day in the Genesis narrative that is not described as “it was good.”

That page is chronically out of date. A better option is https://www.lemmyapps.com/

Check out !lemmyapps@lemmy.world for updates on the latest apps

[Always has been.png]

Thanks, I appreciate the insight.

This could be a major vector for malicious actors. Try to block me? I’ll just edit my description to cut off from every community.

Dead internet is only a theory. Like gravity.

Bad bot.

Sometimes I forget how brutal the early 2000s were.

Having a number of different editors allows manipulating the discussion and concensus protections built into Wikipedia.

Depending on the topic, it may not be necessary. A complimentary article about a new technology product or company founder just takes a few press releases that get picked up. Manipulating world events and leaders requires more coordination.

Although manipulating the sources cited is a great way to manipulate Wikipedia. You have to recruit 10-40 people to act as a group of editors to manufacture concensus across topics. Or you can just create a website or series of press releases.

“Hey, this small-town museum has an article about a historical event. It must be true. Link it at the bottom.” Or “well, this local newspaper article says it is happened, so into the article it goes.”

Even more effective, especially for political groups, is just publish dozens of supportive articles, while miring competing articles in edit wars and the bureaucracy that comes with it. For sources, just cite expert books that are favorable. It’s not easy, but hiring or recruiting 10-40 editors is trivial for political entities.

We honestly need to end the myth that Wikipedia is some impenetrable white tower. It can and has been infiltrated by corporate and political groups, and even creative vandals.

It’s the most valuable digital property in the world. You think people break into the Louvre but can’t touch Wikipedia?

I had the same reaction! I had to log into the screwy web portal and test it to realize it was something else entirely.

If they built out a Mastodon network with government support, then it would.

Uh, Mastodon exists?