conorab
@conorab@lemmy.conorab.com
lemmy
0.19.12
0
Followers
0
Following
Joined July 19, 2023
Posts
Open post
In reply to
conorab
@conorab@lemmy.conorab.com
lemmy.conorab.com
@conorab@lemmy.conorab.com
in
technology
·
Feb 23, 2026
You would need a way of verifying that the SHA256 is a true copy of the site at the time though and not a faked page. You could do something like have a distributed network of archives that coordinate archival at the same time and then using the SHA256 then be able to see which archives fetched exactly the same page at the same time through some search functionality. I mean if addons are already being used for doing the crawling then we may be mostly there already since said addons would just need to certify their archive and after that they can discard the actual copy of the page. You need need a way to validate those workers though since a bad actor could just run a whole bunch at the same time to legitimise a fake archival.
View full thread on lemmy.conorab.com
0
1
0
0
Open post
View full thread on lemmy.conorab.com
In reply to
conorab
@conorab@lemmy.conorab.com
lemmy.conorab.com
Still an error unfortunately. Should be:
- the
- bart
- the
17
6
0
0
Open post
In reply to
conorab
@conorab@lemmy.conorab.com
lemmy.conorab.com
@conorab@lemmy.conorab.com
in
technology
·
Dec 15, 2025
Surely at some point this would run foul of defamation laws (Australia’s ones can be brutal under the right circumstances). I kinda get wanting to let AIs have a bit of leniency by you then hit the obvious problem of people just hiding behind AIs when they want to make a defamatory claim or just don’t care about being accurate and then blame the AI. Especially with claims like this which if spread, can cause serious reputational harm or even death.
View full thread on lemmy.conorab.com
0
0
0
0
Open post
In reply to
conorab
@conorab@lemmy.conorab.com
lemmy.conorab.com
@conorab@lemmy.conorab.com
in
technology
·
Dec 11, 2025
Both ends of this are frustrating. Buying a domain either as a purely speculative asset (as the judge correctly labeled this purchase as) so you can 1) get under someones skin enough to make them want to buy the domain from you, or 2) just buying up every popular or potentially popular domain just to sell if off is scummy behaviour that ideally this guy should never have been able to do in the first place.
The other end of this I don’t like though is the possibility of somebody being able to convince a judge that they should own your domain and then just being able to take it. In this case I think the judge ruled correctly but the idea that somebody (especially in the US government) would be able to just take away my domain on a whim is terrifying when you can’t just go to people and say “hey, the person you are going to this domain for has now moved and is now here”. Things like e-mail address, monitoring, firewall exceptions and many self-hosted sites assume that the owner of the domain does not change hands without permission, and trust the domain blindly. Taking away a domain isn’t just like taking away somebodies nickname. It’s taking away their online identity and forced impersonation.
I really wish there was a way to address each other in a decentralised way that doesn’t just push the problem down to something like a public key, where the same problem exists except now you worry about the key being compromised.
The fact that we have ways to coordinate globally unique addresses that we collectively agree on who owns what is a feat. It just sucks that it’s also something which somebody can take away from you.
View full thread on lemmy.conorab.com
0
0
0
0