this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2023
529 points (92.6% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

35747 readers
116 users here now

Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.

I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!

It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...


7. Content should match the theme of this community.


-Content should be Mildly infuriating.

-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.

...


8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.


-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.

...

...


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense


Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I needed to reinstall Firefox on this computer, so I started up Chrome to download the latest version and it blocked the download as unsafe! I had to manually tell it to download anyway.

Fuck Chrome. I'm glad I only used it to download one file and went back to Firefox.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world 52 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Remember when the meme was about Internet Explorer?

IE: What is my purpose?

Me: You download Chrome!

IE: Oh...my god!

Now Chrome isn't trusted. Even duck duck go is getting dubious. It seems there's almost nowhere to turn. Your data is their data, and if you dont like it, you can lump it.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] omnomed@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Basically microsoft has a deal with them which makes them give aggregate data to microsoft. Which led to this.

P.S. : I am primarily still using ddg in case someone's thinking I'm an anti or something.

[–] Vt1984@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ok, seems it’s time to seek next search engine.

[–] greywolf0x1@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I use both SearX and LibreX alongside DDG and that helps with 99% of my daily search online.

If I need to use Google for search, I do so in my tor browser.

[–] mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Don't google block your tor browser?

[–] greywolf0x1@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Google serves me captcha and those are not much of a problem since I rarely use it.

[–] Vt1984@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The safety of tor browser is great, but I usually use the private mode of safari or firefox, I am lazy to wait for the tor... unless I do some important things.

[–] greywolf0x1@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Browser private modes are not really private, it's just an isolated window that won't save your search to the browser history. Google and other trackers would always link your private session back to you.

Read Mozilla's take on browser private modes.

[–] Vt1984@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It’s just a balance between performance and safety. Everyone in different situations needs to consider whether it’s suitable for themselves to make different decisions. The most safe usage doesn’t always mean the best usage for every situation, OK?

[–] outerspace@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Kagi.com is pretty good

[–] v81@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Nothing. Just a misunderstanding that blew up.

[–] FatTony@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] v81@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Someone did provide a source in response when asked instead of writing a diatribe, not that I disagree with you, but your complaint was unnecessary. Someone made a claim and was asked for more information, you made an opposite claim in response to that and were asked for more information.

[–] v81@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] FatTony@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Is it fair that I have to post a source when someone criticizing doesn’t?

If you're trying to debunk a myth or call someone's BS, then yes a source should be your opening statement. Is it fair? No. Is it necessary? Absolutely.

With all that said thank you for providing the source. A very well written one it was. I am going to debunk this myth now too, if and when I see it.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nothing to see here, you say? Gotcha. 🙈

[–] v81@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks. Sorry you feel providing a source for claims is unfair, but it is what it is.

All I really needed was context, to be honest, in this particular case. I got that, so thanks again.

[–] v81@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Asking for a source isn't unreasonable in a more important setting.

It's more an issue that no one asks for source for the original accusation.

It's the kind of action that lets baseless and faulty accusations get more traction than the truth.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I think they were just curious and should've probably said "What happened? And do you possibly have a link to more information?" I don't think they were questioning the claim, itself. That's just my interpretation.

[–] FutileRecipe@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Even duck duck go is getting dubious.

Tried Kagi?

[–] SkyeHarith@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Eyy! You took the words out of my mouth! I don’t mind paying for a search engine if it’s good lol

[–] FutileRecipe@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's the whole "if you're not paying for the product, you are the product." But I guess the downvoters are perfectly fine with having their data harvested for "free."

[–] Metype@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Not as easy of a choice when I'm struggling to get a job :/