They definitely do check. I don’t know how detailed the checks are or how major a crime it is to use someone else’s info, but there are enough checks in place, you can’t just type in Porky Pig or made-up nonsense or anything.

Google bought Waze, so at this point you’re probably not making any Israeli spies money if you make use of it. On the other hand, you’re making Google money, which is almost as bad.

See my other comment; I think the same user contingent that likes VPNs tends to also want maximum convenience, which isn’t Tor. Of course they frame convenience as the only relevant factor, instead of acknowledging that being the tradeoff they’re making.

I haven’t really played around with VPNs to make the comparison. Tor breaks for a significant number of sites, but it’s still a pretty small minority; “only works for a small number of sites” is a comical untruth.

If Tor breaks more sites than VPNs do (which I think is likely), I think it is because Tor is secure. It is easier to do malicious things behind Tor because you have, for all intents and purposes, an unbreakable shield of privacy while you are doing those malicious things. And so, site operators tend to block it more readily than they do VPNs.

Whether you want to make the tradeoff in favor of convenience or genuine privacy is, of course, up to you. It’s not surprising to me that the Lemmy userbase is more or less unanimous in favor of convenience. Of course it is fine if you want, but you don’t need to misrepresent how things are to make it the only possible choice.

Tor Browser

Done

I dislike the phrasing “data rape.”

Dude I didn’t pick this weird pedantic fight and get all upset about what Wikipedia says and what a problem it is. You did. Now that it turned out you were making it up, it’s all of a sudden weird for people to care about it. Okay.

Wait, so up there it looks like the actual truth is not “Some years later I tried again but you could no longer make changes IIRC. Just checked, info still missing.” but in fact that the exact information is already in the article.

Glad we had this talk lol. I mean it’s a pretty trivial thing to get upset about even if it were true, I can somewhat believe that some random person might have reverted your edits for bad reasons, but I am wholly unsurprised to learn that there was no grand conspiracy and the information in the article has been corrected now even though you specifically said that it wasn’t.

It strongly looks like you’re making things up lol

It is trivial to check what changes someone did or didn’t make 10 years ago on Wikipedia, if you know which page of Wikipedia it was on. Which page was it on?

What does the article mean “Juniper Networks, despite being a “Good Article”, is also mostly PR”?

It’s all part of their various horseshit attempt at making something which is pretty simple an innocuous into something that it isn’t.

Within the last few days, it looks like someone raised the issue on this guy’s page, the arbitration committee is getting in touch with him, and he’s saying he’ll get back to them. Presumably there’s a minor conflict of interest and they’ll look over the article and make sure he didn’t do anything slanty to it and then tell him to stay away from COI-adjacent articles in the future.

There’s absolutely nothing sinister here, and they are stringing together a bunch of misleading stuff (like “mostly PR”) to make a mountain out of a molehill to discredit Wikipedia. I’ve noticed a bunch of people doing this, presumably there is some organized campaign which actually is sinister in the way they’re implying WP is, that is trying to make people think badly of them.