Usenet had the Cancelmoose, so message sanitization has always been part of the Internet. In this case, I see this browser extension as purely a tool of the end user and not a blanket threat to the peer community at large.
Usenet kill file, IRC ignore list, email spam filters, web browser adblockers, disabling JavaScript, using Archive.org/.today to read content, using plain text and a remote host to parse URLs to forward the content to email, RSS readers, converting content based on CSS selectors or json (e.g. jq) to XML/RSS.
The internet has and will always be about increasibg the signal te noise ratio for the user. The fact someone resorts to blacklisting entire comment section tells us something about how they view the quality of these in general; subpar.
It isn't just LLMs which contribute to that. Troll farms do, too.
>The internet has and will always be about increasibg the signal te noise ratio for the user.
And my point is that the signal used to primarily originate from peer interactions, not broadcasting. Look at Usenet, AOL's structure, or Web 1.0. There's an inversion in the modern era, where broadcast messaging is perceived as the signal, and peer interactions the noise.
Odd comparison. Admin cancels on Usenet were focused specifically and totally on individual, service-abusing or commercial "spam". While this is a tool that wipes out comment sections from view entirely.
I've found this extension to be highly valuable on sports and movie/tv sites at thwarting spoilers and blabbermouths. Its value on political sites is much appreciated.
The article says in the title how that won't solve the problem. Their chief solution is guarding against invisible tracking pixels all over the web, and how using a properly equipped browser and extensions can hopefully mitigate them. I found the article's recommendation of suitable browsers to be quite poor: a brush off to Firefox and no mention of LibreWolf, IronFox, etc al.
Very cool to see one comment linking to an old Sears magazine from the 1920s, showing some of the equipment people would have constructed these networks from:
That web site is focused on analogue-era UHF-band TV in the U.S.A. with rare mentions of the many Canadian UHF-band channels that were receivable along the northern border back then.
I immediately looked for any channel 37 assignments and found just one, which was assigned but never used. 37 was intentionally kept clear by international convention as a safe band for radio astronomy.
''I'm getting to the point where I'm being confused by large numbers (almost running out of fingers and toes again), so the next kernel is going to be called 7.0.'' -- Linus Torvalds
reply