It will stop the lazy, which is 99% of the battle. If you want some form of security, then either a user generated pin or a captcha will do the trick to keep bots away. If you want to avoid both of those, then a longer url will also work. 12 characters will prevent attacks from getting anything but lucky.

Even a captcha would work. You wouldn’t have to have your users create a one time use password, you can just have a set of 5 random numbers that someone has to type in in order to access the data.

It says that once the content is accessed, it vanishes. So, you can have a max 2 day expiration length, but as soon as someone follows the link, it’s gone? It’s not a bad idea, but it is prone to abuse. I could write a scraper app that would give me all of the active URLs and in doing so would delete any message attached to them. I personally wouldn’t, because it doesn’t serve much purpose, but if there were a malicious agent, it wouldn’t take much to wreak havoc. It wouldn’t even be a DDOS level attack, just a simple scraper using minimal resources.

Truly, though, I do like it. I just think that the automatic removal might be a risky feature.

The foundation slants slightly to the west.

Not sure if you are joking or not, but that’s the Manson “family.” It’s the cult.

Patrick. Leo was waaaay too pompous.

For anyone keeping count, that’s about a day and a half per week.

By all means, keep accepting everything you read at face value. You’ll be a fucking Republican in no time.

“Everyone who doesn’t agree with me is a bot.”

As long as I can still get my truck stop boner pills I’m good.

Ok, here’s the deal. If you want to make a case for this, that’s fine. HOWEVER (and it’s a big ‘however’) we can’t just sound like the same people who cried foul over Trump’s lost election. We have to provide verifiable and independently verified proof.

In the primary article, we’re lacking evidence that Tripp Lite UPS devices actually manipulated votes. There’s no documentation of vote manipulation occurring at all, no verified communications proving coordination between the named parties, and the statistical anomalies are described but not rigorously analyzed or peer-reviewed.

The article builds an elaborate theory by connecting real business relationships and technological capabilities, but it doesn’t provide evidence that these connections were actually used for election manipulation. It assumes malicious intent based on proximity and capability rather than proving actual wrongdoing.

The Common Coalition Report has many of the same flaws, chief among them being a lack of peer-reviewed evidence. Claims about man-in-the-middle attacks are technically possible, but unproven, and the connection between corporate partnerships and vote manipulation is purely speculative.

If you want to present this as the truth, then we need transparent statistical methodology, which means we don’t cherry-pick data, and we can’t mix legitimate concerns with unsubstantiated technical claims. While this report contains some legitimate concerns about voter suppression and references some real statistical analysis, the core claims about systematic vote manipulation through satellite networks and corporate conspiracies remain largely unsubstantiated. The evidence presented is primarily circumstantial, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof that simply isn’t provided here.

The document appears designed more to persuade than to present rigorous evidence, using emotional appeals and political rhetoric alongside data points. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it isn’t something we should be presenting to the general public as fact, lest we look like conspiracy theorists. Verify the facts, then present the evidence—all else is folly.

Because the FCC is holding licenses hostage.

I gotta fuckin’ know…

I miss this format so much. It’s one of my favorites.

It’s everything I’ve ever wanted.

Right, they are confirmed.

Which is exactly why I said TOS and not the US laws. I don’t really agree with the laws here either, because they create a safe harbor for illegal ends, but I understand that it is a lot easier, and arguably better, to self-police the content. That is what Patreon is doing. They view it as a violation of their TOS to generate revenue on a site that knowingly and willingly hosts CSAM. I’m with Patreon on this one. This wasn’t the first offence, and there is no way that the person that runs the site doesn’t know that material is on there. Pleading ignorant isn’t going to work. Running anonymous file hosting, no matter how good your intentions, is going to bring out the worst of the internet, guaranteed. If you can somehow get around that logic, you’ve got a bright future with the NRA.

How Libertarian of you.

“Ahhh shit, they opened the XOR gate! Quick, someone check the blood sacrifice box and find out if the cat is dead or alive!”

Yeah, it really comes back to the idea of if a file hosting service is responsible for what the user uploads, which is an argument that has been going on since the beginning of the internet. Ultimately, yes, I think they are. I think you have to actively moderate what is uploaded, but on top of that, there has to be swifter and stricter punishment for those that do upload things that are against TOS and/or illegal. If someone is uploading CSAM, then law enforcement needs to go after them. Maybe they’ll actually do something people appreciate, instead of killing minorities.

Edit: If you are downvoting me without giving a reason, I just have to assume you are Libertarian, and that’s being generous.