Aurix

If you had an old device like that, could you still surf the web half-ways safely with another browser on those platforms?

Agree.

Unsure what to think on this. Harry Potter as a franchise and the products itself aren't transphobic, and how much JKR and the artist and their art are to be connected is up for every individual. Declaring the Harry Potter franchise a "NoGo zone for anyone pro trans" is doing more harm than good. There were streamers viciously attacked just for streaming Hogwart's Legacy while trying to secure funds for trans organizations. Creating a fandom where outed pro-trans people will be squished by both sides.

The discussion is poisoned and after the Hogwart's Legacy fiasco, where way too many pro-diversity people received attacks, going down this path doesn't bode well. And lots of it is a low-hanging fruit people go for some virtue signaling. The boycott declared here doubtfully matters to those voicing it out. At the same time I go to local merchandise, geek and book stores which are filled with various Harry Potter gear, don't seem to get any meaningful attention, while making likely much more money than this. Furthering my belief, that the intentions are empty, which in turn wouldn't surprise me, as actual trans people are one of the tinies minorities out there and probably don't even have the majority inside these groups.

Attacking the products behind this, also attacks the collective workers and teams behind it, which create them hopefully with peaceful intentions and messages for a multitude of cultures.

Rowling receiving royalties on them isn't the mean evil. It is one small drop of a currently nepotistic, capitalistic, plutocratic society we live in. Single people should not have all that power to them with bigger wallets, influencing society like this. More money from Rowling, as with any other rich personas, should drain more aggressively to democratic institutions.

It probably is the wrong type of medication for his ADHD case. Sedation like that doesn't sound right fundamentally.

tl;dr Add-on developer ansh sold out the extension to new owners. Commited updates 1.8.8 to the Mozilla repository, but nothing on GitHub containing the malware. The malware was a custom implementation of the mellowtel scraper mentioned in the arstechnica article. It had the opt-in functionality disabled and other "bugs" which caused excessive bandwidth usage. Please be aware there is no independent verification whether not more possible harm was caused than the mentioned mellowtel scraping.

By jiffyreader, the from the github link provided:

"Hey all,

Sorry for the delay in answering here. I was waiting for the dust to settle a little bit before clearing things up.

I tried to explain the timeline and sequence of actions in the last messages. Many of you want to know the reasons behind them.


I saw that developers were earning a lot from turning their products into proxies for scraping and were being paid by proxy providers like anyIP or brightdata. Usually they pay more for mobile proxies. So I decided to try a similar idea. I saw that Jiffy Reader had already tried with mellowtel but had stopped after a while. I thought I could monetize it by making a custom integration and bought the plugin. I tried the open source version of mellowtel but changed the code in order to make it native (refer to the Single Purpose policy issue above) and removed some of the limits in the library. In the process I introduced bugs and caused issues to a lot of you which triggered the malware report. The reason why these bugs were not immediately clear and I couldn’t solve them is because they showed up based on some specific requests/websites (google search or pdf download, etc.) and device conditions (pdf viewer open/scrolling a tab with videos) which I didn’t have a way to replicate and solve.

As I remarked before, the plugin didn’t steal any cookies/credit cards/password or personal data and you can check the network output logs or any VPN logs to confirm. You are still free to change passwords/auth sessions but JiffyReader didn’t collect or leak any of this personal information.

Ideally, I wanted to keep the product running/improving it and using this forked version for monetization without affecting users negatively. But in my eagerness to have the version accepted by the review team I changed the code to not display the opt-in and out page immediately and that removed a lot of user control. And I think I introduced some bugs (but from an arstechnica article that @concernedcitizen2 has also linked it looks like the original library had some issues on its own, so it could also be due to that).

For GDPR, I haven’t collected any data from this bandwidth sharing monetization (including IPs which I don’t store). The privacy policy on the website refers to google analytics, to the Crisp web chat and to any contact information the user might pass to us. The public pages that were scraped didn’t have to do anything with the websites a user might be visiting. The same goes for Meucci.js which just monitored xhr/ajax requests INSIDE the session-less frame, not outside, so again it didn’t revolve around any user data. You can look at the mellowtel library since I used a lot of that code

Sorry for the issues and concerns I’ve caused with these actions.

I will be committing all changes to this repo and removing all the flawed forked code. I will also send a new version for the same to FireFox, Edge and Chrome again. Going forward, I will always keep the open-source version in sync with the submitted version.

If anyone wants to reach out, you can do at jiffyreader007@gmail.com. I feel like it’s not good to keep this discussion on this repo and I’ve created a separate Discord in the meanwhile: https://discord.gg/cjwS8vmR3R

I’m really sorry for this and having removed a useful plugins that so many people used. Thanks for your understanding."

Here is the full list of extensions: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/e/2PACX-1vT1XgBs25gRlg5e3nYCAff967WMtZZTO-TB3rR9zszaJpTpCVFg8j7FkBxnHb3tw3aHGjKBGSxYyLgV/pubhtml?pli=1

The Deep Fake Detector probably can't keep up anymore with the recent AI advances.

It is a definitional and logical conclusion that a concept cannot tolerate its anathema and inverse.

This is a pretty good rewording removing ambiguity.

As for my experience seeing this point brought up, its usually to silence a voice, and then this logical statement is equaled to the moral reasoning and justification in one, instead of reasoning inside that case how a "removal" would be required.

What if the other party in question is of the opinion they didn't break it, yet the other claims it has been. Who gets to decide it?

What does nuking a potato mean? Unfamiliar with the slang.