Virtual Insanity

  • 0 Posts
  • 40 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 4th, 2023

help-circle






  • 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.






  • 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.







  • That’s how we differ.

    You’re focusing on being radical and using emotional buzz words (death of children), where as I’m actually interested in changing the status quo with regard to cars, and have been effective in doing so at a local level without making an ass of myself.

    I share what I’ve achieved when practical and many good discussions come of it.

    What have you done today?

    Yell at the internet about ‘trucks’ that very few actually use and get a few pats in the back for it?

    The difference is, fuck cars is an ineffective and damaging community when it comes to influencing positive change, and you think you’re part of the solution when in fact your part of the problem.

    People are never going to take a community like that seriously while so critical and full of negativity.



  • I have already made that comparison, and still have found it double the price of other cases that you describe.

    Cases from recycled materials should be cheaper, as they are don’t having to purchase virgin material, not more expensive.

    Anyone charging a premium for recycled material products is usually targeting and taking advantage of ‘green’ customers.

    The ability to recycle most plastics in 2023 is pretty standard unless they’re overly cleaning or bleaching the material, in which case it is no longer environmentally friendly.