51
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2026
51 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
42471 readers
495 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
By extremist, I was referring to the absurdity of the statement. Either it's the end of the world, or the article authors are conspirators. Surely it can't be something simple that isn't on one end of a spectrum. This is what leads to radicalization.
They are both. An extremism can be real. A conspiracy can be proven true, and in your example it is.
There is no evidence, nor reason to believe, the authors of the article in question are conspirators. There is no reason to believe the contents of the article are intended to be anything more than informational, even if with the inherent bias all authors posess. To perceive it as such would be a sign of extreme radicalization or, as you put it, an "online influence campaign" which would be conveniently set before a midterm election in the US.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting the commenter actually is part of some campaign. I wouldn't know. I do believe its contents are extreme though.
So to be clear, asking whether an article has ulterior motives qualifies as an "extremist" question, in your eyes?
Because that seems a pretty extreme limitation on acceptable critical and contextual interrogation of news, to me. You should always be asking that question, in a world where 90% of news orgs are owned by people with heavy political connections and influence.
The suggestion that the authors of an article have ulterior motives is an extreme position to take, yes.
At no point did I ever say that it's a bad thing to hold that position, nor did I say it's an invalid position, nor did I say it's an incorrect position*. But in the society we live in, that position is pretty extreme
*Edit: as a general claim, and obviously only for trustworthy sources. For this particular article, it is a ridiculous position to take though.
Edit 2: I'm really confused what the point of this is. Are you defending that this article might reasonably be published with ulterior motives? Are you arguing over the semantics of the word "extreme"? Are you defending that the original comment reads like a sane interpretation of the article, even if flawed?
By what metric? And "Extreme" and "Extremist" are two different words, with different meanings and connotations.
Extreme simply means the far end of a spectrum. Extremist means
(and that's even avoiding the legal definitions that exist in e.g. the UK that specifically tie "extremist" to violence)
Without offering any metric by which to assert that, you most certainly did convey the commonly understood negative connotation by calling it extremist.
I added a second edit it appears after your comment, but repeating it here: what's the point of this? To me it seems like an argument over the semantics of a word which I honestly couldn't care less about. Are you defending that the commenter's comment reads like a sane interpretation of the article?
Nobody here is saying that it's ridiculous to question your sources or try to identify potential bias in articles. Those are things you should always do. That's not what this commenter was doing, though.
So what do you think there were doing, exactly?
Let's break their comment down, and then you can point out the part that is "extremist".
This is 100% accurate, especially in the age of Mirai-like IoT botnets. 14k is pretty small nowadays. Variants of Mirai (e.g. Midori and Aisuru) had 300,000+ devices.
Correct, this is a pretty low-danger botnet due to being low-power consumer devices, even if it's difficult to clean.
Less fair, because it is still news, and Ars is a tech news site.
The part I assume you take issue with, but it's also a completely fair question (and is in fact precisely "telling people to question the purpose and bias of news"). The article made the deliberate choice to name-drop BitTorrent and IPFS, despite them not being related other than them also using DHTs. I understand the writer may not have been intending to draw a "malware <-> bittorrent" association in the readers' minds... or they may have. It's sort of like saying, "the killer drove an Audi, much like Nico Hulkenberg". That's why you have to critically question news.
The point is that you immediately jumped to calling them an "extremist" for what seems a pretty innocuous (if not particularly useful) comment. We generally assume good-faith around here, and calling people "extremist" for questioning an Ars article doesn't seem like that to me.
The final question presents a false dichotomy that it is the end of the internet or that the authors are pushing an agenda. This is a belief "that most people think [is] unreasonable and unacceptable" (as you put it) in the context of this specific article, which is what their comment was in response to.
I have no issue with anything that precedes that, obviously.