531
Chrome thinks Firefox is unsafe!
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2023
531 points (92.6% liked)
Mildly Infuriating
35457 readers
1313 users here now
Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.
I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!
It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
7. Content should match the theme of this community.
-Content should be Mildly infuriating.
-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.
...
8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.
-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.
...
...
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Nothing. Just a misunderstanding that blew up.
Context and source?
those also blew up, no traces left
https://lemmy.world/comment/6302824
Is it fair that I have to post a source when someone criticizing doesn't?
I'm just a passing stranger that just happens to have good knowledge about a significant misunderstanding that happened a year ago.
I don't walk around with 'sources' to all of the knowledge I've ever gained hanging out of my back pocket.
This is why "source?" posts are stupid and unreasonable, double so when in response to something where a source was never provided.
Now.. that all said, I do have a moment now that I didn't have previously to provide additional information.
This article... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31490515 ...Is a starting point, and more info can be found with your own search.
The basic gist was that it was claims DDG pass user data that could identify a user to Microsoft from searches, however this was never the case.
I have to allegiance with DDG.. they do an ok job. But I do indeed think it unfair they get continuously accused of wrongdoing, even still to this day as evidenced here.
This is just another case of bad, negative or incorrect information getting more publicity than the facts.
Someone did provide a source in response when asked instead of writing a diatribe, not that I disagree with you, but your complaint was unnecessary. Someone made a claim and was asked for more information, you made an opposite claim in response to that and were asked for more information.
The person that made the claim never responded. I don't know what you're talking about.
However I did respond, when I could.
So point stands, an accusation was made without evidence, and that accusation is still there, and now mine and one other post responds to that accusation... that again is without evidence.
My issues is, when I made that last post, why was I asked for a source, but no one asked the person making the claim against DDG for a source?
If the people asking me for a source had also asked the original claimant for a source I'd have no issue.
The practice of asking the counter claimant for a source and not the claimant is rife, unfair, unreasonable and needs to be called out.
If seems far too common to accept a say so when an accusation is made online.
If you're trying to debunk a myth or call someone's BS, then yes a source should be your opening statement. Is it fair? No. Is it necessary? Absolutely.
With all that said thank you for providing the source. A very well written one it was. I am going to debunk this myth now too, if and when I see it.
Nothing to see here, you say? Gotcha. 🙈
https://lemmy.world/comment/6302824
Thanks. Sorry you feel providing a source for claims is unfair, but it is what it is.
All I really needed was context, to be honest, in this particular case. I got that, so thanks again.
Asking for a source isn't unreasonable in a more important setting.
It's more an issue that no one asks for source for the original accusation.
It's the kind of action that lets baseless and faulty accusations get more traction than the truth.
I think they were just curious and should've probably said "What happened? And do you possibly have a link to more information?" I don't think they were questioning the claim, itself. That's just my interpretation.