17
Posts from r/thehatedone Powered by @reddit2telegram and @r_channels
How The Most Corrupt Bank Got Away With Everything
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nxw3tfISTTA
https://redd.it/15emddy
@r_thehatedone
Cloudflare's interesting DMARC DNS record
This is the most appropriate subreddit I have found to share what I have just found. Please let me know if there are others where I might be able to post this as well.
I was playing around with a DNS lookup tool, trying to research how certain domain names have their DNS records set up and whatnot. Eventually, I landed on Cloudflare, and what really caught my eye is their DMARC record. Not only it's the longest of all others that I have checked previously, but it also contains a small piece of information that I don't think even makes sense to be there. Here's what I'm talking about:
v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100; rua=mailto:rua@cloudflare.com,mailto:cloudflare@dmarc.area1reports.com,mailto:reports@dmarc.cyber.dhs.gov; ruf=mailto:cloudflare@dmarc.area1reports.com
For anyone who doesn't know, DMARC is basically a set of guidelines for email providers for when a sender (From: address) fails both email authentication (if the email was sent from a valid domain name or IP address - aka SPF) and email integrity (if the contents of the email haven't been tampered with through public key signature - aka DKIM), which both have their own protections for when only one of those checks fails.
My topic of interest here are specifically the rua and ruf parameters in this record. Both do generally the same thing, which is sending reports regarding emails that failed DMARC verification on behalf of Cloudflare to all listed email addresses. The difference here is that:
`rua` is for aggregate reports, sent once every day with an XML file with a general overview of the report.
ruf is for forensic reports, sent immediately as they happen, with more personally identifiable information about the sender that failed the verification.
Anyway, none of this is interesting, but what is interesting is the fact that a government email address is listed there (reports@dmarc.cyber.dhs.gov), and it's the first time I've ever seen something like this. What's even more interesting, is that the whole time that address has been receiving Cloudflare's aggregate reports, not forensic...
Am I understanding this correctly? Why would a government agency, Homeland Security, be interested in Cloudflare's general email reports? I would understand if it's forensic, maybe trying to catch those that are attempting to impersonate Cloudflare with a possible phishing scam or something. But, general reports once per day...?
Am I missing something? Does anybody know anything about this?
https://redd.it/15beyyb
@r_thehatedone
Pixel 6a not anonymous anymore?
hey,
so I bought a pixel 6a from a physical store and updated it to android 13 on public wifi.
I dont remember when exactly but for some reason my location was on either before or after installing graphene os and I turned it off.
I also used the vanadium browser for some surfing and downloaded telegram giving it network permission but uninstalled it without ever creating an account.
TLDR: I used my grapheneos Phone for a few days(not alot) before discovering TheHatedOne's tutorial and also had(dont remember when exactly) location on either before or after installation of grapheneos.
https://redd.it/10s53w5
@r_thehatedone
Mark Rober has also posted billionaire propaganda.
In 2020, Mark Rober posted a video about fake meat (Video) that discussed how fake meat was just as viable as fake meat, having the same nutrition, and taste. This video also heavily talks about the environmental benefits of fake meat. This video states that it's sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as well as having Bill Gates being featured in the video, eating a real burger and a fake burger, talking about how good the fake burger is. He also has his family get burgers and secretly give them plant-based burgers. Mark's video never says how Bill Gates has major stakes in fake meat, conveniently leaving that out. Mark Rober's video is just a huge advertisement for Bill Gates and his product.
https://redd.it/10qi7ks
@r_thehatedone
Is this a false positive? I'm using Hypatia from F-Droid
https://redd.it/10pdma6
@r_thehatedone
Closed Network Podcast: ‘The Privacy Threesome’ With The Hated one & Side Of Burritos
https://closednetwork.io/podcast/episode-24-the-privacy-threesome-with-the-hated-one-side-of-burritos/
https://redd.it/10pbsmg
@r_thehatedone
response.
First, fact-checking does not replace scientific method. You are story tellers, not scientists. Your scripts are stories, not scientific papers. There is no peer-review process in your research. Fact-checking doesn't replace the need for peer-review process. Your videos are NOT science education. This is also according to your admission in one of your Reddit [comments](https://old.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/rb12fq/and_well_do_it_again/hnn9tg4/?context=3).
Second, you don't go out of your way to diversify your sources and the pool of scientists you verify with. Your scientists are credible people with amazing academic achievements, but your scientists predominantly come from Western institutions (mainly UK, USA, Germany) that receive significant funding from the same billionaires that fund your videos. Note: this estimate is only evaluating videos funded by billionaire sponsors as listed in my video critique.
A lot of credible organizations rely on Our World In Data. But maybe they *shouldn't rely on them so much.* Because Our World In Data was founded and is lead by primarily by people from the Effective Altruism and Longtermism movements, both of which receive significant billionaire funding. It can all be good and credible science, but it's science from a single perspective. This is a very common problem in Western academia and research - a lot of the research disregards or dismisses data from non-Western sources. Geographical bias is prevalent. There is the orientalism problem, as presented by Edward Said, that criticizes Western academia for their generalization of non-Western cultures, primarily Middle Eastern, Asian and African.
Fact checkers have perspectives too. And there are issues they might be more lenient on than others. Fact-checking does not eliminate bias. Your sponsors have financial investments in for-profit businesses and they want to benefit from more exposure to their interests. That's the core reason why shouldn't take money from them if you want to cover the their interests. Otherwise what you do is well-produced, nicely animated, fact-checked advertising.
Lastly, a core critique in my video is that [you told your audience that Kurzgesagt does not let sponsors comment on your scripts](https://old.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/ql88mw/hi_im_philipp_dettmer_founder_and_head_writer_of/hj4268z/). But you have made multiple videos were you consult with direct employees of your sponsors or in a few instances, you let sponsors be the only listed scientists in your scripts. I have shown in my video instances of a video sponsored by William MacAskill, a video made with Max Roser and the Gates Foundation, and a video on vaccine side effects that features a Gates Foundation employee among scientists you consulted with.
**Strawmaning your opposition is a dishonest practice**
Towards the end of your response, you make a final claim that the discourse of my video deals in absolute terms of "good vs evil" and that “Kurzgesagt should have been more transparent” turns into “Kurzgesagt is literally bought by Billionaires”. This is the most intellectually dishonest statement in your statement to the point it makes taking your response as good faith extremely difficult.
Never did I imply in my video or anywhere else, that Kurzgesagt is bought by anyone, no less billionaires. You are quite literally, making a strawman. You are arguing against an argument that has never been made by me. For how much you claim authority for your "fact-checking" practice at Kurzgesagt, this is a gross debate tactic.
Similarly, I have never used the term "evil", no to mention the proposition of "good vs evil". Again, you are going out of your way to portray a caricature out of my arguments and my character. I can only gather you did this to fuel aversion from your own community towards any criticism laid against your funding and conflict of interests at Kurzgesagt or even when it comes to private and billionaire funding in general.
My video has more than 70 references, it is a result of more than three-month-long
"billionaire funded and not viewer funded" as you state in your response. In a response to another critical video of Kurzgesagt climate change series, you [commented](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KQYNtPl7V4&lc=Ugw7oaypQ3qALcugYzh4AaABAg) that Kurzgesagt is an "*almost entirely viewer-funded*" channel. What **my video is arguing against is your statement that Kurzgesagt is "almost entirely viewer funded"**. And what my evaluation showed, and what you also seem to admit, is that you did indeed received more funds from billionaire entities than your Patreon supporter. Admittedly, Patreon funding is not the only revenue stream that can be considered as coming from viewers. So let’s take a look at your claims in more detail.
There are several major problems with your numbers. You claim that out of the 65% of funds that come from your viewers, 45% is revenue from Kurzgesagt shop, 13% is ad revenue from YouTube and 7% is Patreon.
Setting aside that these numbers are just for the period of the last three years arbitrarily chosen by you instead of the full seven years of your company's existence, there are several troubling discrepancies.
First, to count YouTube ad revenue as viewer funds is profoundly misleading. **YouTube viewers do not have funds** they support channels with, unless they are channel members or have a premium YouTube subscription, in which case, they don't generate ad revenue at all. **YouTube ad revenue is funds from advertisers** paid to Google, which YouTube than distributes to creators on split basis. It is NOT funds from viewers. Viewers do not choose which ads are played.
Second, you claim that 45% of revenue from viewers is from Kurzgesagt’s shop. This revenue can be considered as coming from viewer funds and the proportion is surprisingly large. However, if you are speaking of this in terms of revenue, do you mean means gross income? That is revenue before you account for the cost of designing your merch items, cost of production, shipment, customer support, dealing with returns and taxes. However, a more relevant number would be the net profit from the merch sales, after all costs and taxes have been subtracted. Only this revenue is actually available as ***funding*** for your videos. In contrast, depending on the contract, up to 100% of revenue from grants and sponsors goes directly to video production. The only exception that is known to the public is one of the two Open Philanthropy grants (about $6,000,000 in total), that was also dedicated towards translation of your currently existing videos into foreign languages alongside video creation (more on that later).
How much of your merch revenue is actually available and/or used to fund YouTube video production?
To conclude this point, since YouTube ad revenue should not be counted as viewer funds, and it is unlikely that all of all your Kurzgesagt shop revenue is available to fund video production, I find your claim that Kurzgesagt is "almost entirely viewer funded" is incorrect. Even if all of your merch revenue was available for video production (highly unlikely), 52% is far from "*almost entirely viewer funded*". Your channel is viewer funded, it is also ad funded, merch funded, sponsor funded, billionaire funded and at the time of my video, it was public knowledge that it was also funded as a PBS in Germany.
Let's address your counterargument, that 70% of funding my video criticizes comes from Open Philanthropy and you claim was not used for any sponsored videos but for translating Kurzgesagt videos.
Kurzgesagt received two grants from Open Philanthropy - [€2,413,800](https://www.openphilanthropy.org/grants/kurzgesagt-video-creation-and-translation/) and [€2,658,344](https://www.openphilanthropy.org/grants/kurzgesagt-short-form-video-content/). Here is a direct citation from the publicized grant awards:
"to support the ***creation*** **of videos on topics relevant to effective altruism and improving** [**humanity’s long-run
My response to Kurzgesagt
Below is my response to Kurzgesagt's response to my video.
Kurzgesagt's official response: https://old.reddit.com/r/kurzgesagt/comments/10jlyyk/kurzgesagt\_statement\_to\_the\_conflict\_of\_interest/
Original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjHMoNGqQTI
Hello Phillip,
Thank you very much for your response. I wasn't expecting it considering it's been about more than a month since my video was published.
I would love for this to be a part of a larger conversation about funding transparency and content integrity. I would also like to point out to everyone participating in this debate that it is possible to both enjoy your favorite content and remain critical of some its problematic aspects. Let's engage in a healthy discourse without resorting to dismissal and dishonesty.
Onto the official response.
I appreciate that you took the time to respond to my video. However, your response is largely insufficient as it dismisses several major points and focuses only on two isolated points. Allow me to go over this first and then address your counter arguments.
In your response, you counter argue against two points
​
the funding of Kurzgesagt videos
working with scientists financially connected to your sponsors
However, there is a range of key points you miss out and they even more important than just those two on their own. Namely, you don't address:
​
criticism of Kurzgesagt sponsor disclaimers and the suggestion they should come at the begging of your videos, and not in the outro or in the description only as you disclaim currently.
criticism that Kurzgesagt is not transparent enough about revealing connections between their sources, scientists they consult with and Kurzgesagt's sponsors.
criticism that Kurzgesagt (or any other informative outlet) should not be receiving funds from entities that have financial agenda (profitable or charitable) in the areas you cover in your videos
criticism that Phillip Dettmer told his viewers through Reddit comments that Kurzgesagt does not let sponsors comment on your scripts, but there are several instances where sponsors had input on your scripts in certain videos.
criticism that Kurzgesagt relied on a sponsor-backed commercial entity for a major citation in Kurzgesagt's source document for a video on climate change
criticism that Kurzgesagt portrays topics that align with their sponsors' interests through the lens that benefits the sponsors' views and interests.
Let me address your counter-arguments.
On funding
In your first counter-argument, you claim that 65% of Kurzgesagt's income is from your viewers. There are several major issues with this statement that I think require your further clarification.
First, you chose a period of three years, from 2020 to 2022. Why are you limiting your numbers to just the last three years? My video evaluates your estimated revenue streams from the moment of Kurzgesgat's incorporation in Germany in September 2015 until about fall of 2022 when my video was finalized. Comparing numbers from just the last three years to the evaluation of a seven-year estimate is not a fair comparison.
This historical context matters, because in your response you are a large animation studio with 60 employees. But back when you where awarded grants from the Gates Foundation, Open Society, and Templeton, you went from just 5 employees to less than a half of what your workforce is today or even at the time my video was released. According to your company documents in Germany, Kurzgesagt had 10 employees in 2016, 14 in 2017, 22 in 2018, 30 in 2019 and 37 in 2020.
Also, in your 2017 Medium article on Kurzgesagt's dealing with sponsors, you admit that Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was your biggest supporter.
Most importantly, my argument wasn't that Kurzgesagt is
Video suggestion
Hi,can you make a YouTube video about Chat gpt.
https://redd.it/10nbb84
@r_thehatedone
Look who ended their State Funding
https://redd.it/10g65n0
@r_thehatedone
Is there any way to post to 4chan totally anonymously?
4chan keeps blocking Tor and VPNs most of the time, how can I create a post totally anonymously on 4chan?
https://redd.it/10bmk7r
@r_thehatedone
Ai and robotics push
Hey dude... um... this might be a stretch but is it possible to look into why there has been an increase in advertising for Ai's like chat gpt and robotics expos... besides the fact that there is economic turnoil, companies like Open A.I(co-founded by Elon Musk and others) are hitting the news while unemployment is less talked about...
https://redd.it/108xnjd
@r_thehatedone
which linux os should i use?
i am just starting out with linux and dont know much. i am not sure about using whonix. please suggest me the most secure and featureful linux distro which is easily usable
https://redd.it/106i0wl
@r_thehatedone
iPhone 14 pro
Hello I recently purchased iPhone 14 pro and this is the only device I own now and I don’t even have a computer what can I do to Anonymise this phone, make it a safe phone? How can I make this a privacy friendly phone? What can I do to optimize privacy on this.
Looking to make this a safe phone and avoid limit potential spying monitoring tapping being done.
Thanks
https://redd.it/105oezs
@r_thehatedone
Threads Is the Perfect Twitter Alternative, Just Not for You
https://blog.privacyguides.org/2023/07/21/threads-launch-twitter/
https://redd.it/15c06ex
@r_thehatedone
Are phone docks secure/private?
https://redd.it/10sk8eb
@r_thehatedone
a defense of kurzgesagt
https://youtu.be/MtRNmzkwM4Q
https://redd.it/10qws17
@r_thehatedone
Dear The Hated one...
I personally really enjoy your videos, but I do have 2 areas that I would suggest that you improve. Firstly, your videos often have a 'conspiracy' vibe even if they are not, I personally think that by having that conspiratorial style, you give haters and propagandists something to feed on. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbLZjA1La5I
Secondly, why have you stopped including crypto donation address in the description? There are some people in your video who have a higher threat model or simply don't want to donate through patreon.
Those are 2 things that you could improve, I still think your videos are amazing, but nothing is perfect.
https://redd.it/10pw0a2
@r_thehatedone
Block Google Search (home network)
I am trying to get my family to switch to one of the meta search engines like searx; however, the family is too used to using google as their default search engine. I use Pihole as a DNS resolver and could easily block google search; however, that also breaks a lot of google apps integration (eg: google docs, etc.). So, how do I specifically only block google search (www.google.com) without breaking google apps functionality? Thanks.
https://redd.it/10pe0b7
@r_thehatedone
open source investigation into publicly available documents, peer-reviewed papers, reports and news articles. It is really disappointing seeing you trying to dismiss this criticism with strawman arguments and mischaracterizations.
**Final thoughts and an invitation**
The main critique in my video, which you haven't addressed in your response, is that by the very least, Kurzgesagt (or any channel or outlet) should disclose their sponsors upfront - that is before the content starts or in the outro. Kurzgesagt only make sponsor disclaimers in the outro or even in the description only, after the main content had already been consumed.
For my final statement, here is a short version of what I propose channels should do to uphold integrity and good ethics:
​
* Do not receive funding from sources that profit or have a financial agenda (for profit or charitable one) in the same topics you cover
* Disclose all your sponsors UPFRONT (before the video starts) in a brief disclaimer
* Disclose conflicting relationships among your sources (i.e. sources owned, funded or operated by sponsors or sponsor-affiliated entities).
Educators, entertainers and journalists are not scientists. They don't have a way to eliminate bias from their funding source like scientists do through an independent peer review.
I think this is an important discourse and I encourage everyone to continue it. These are issues that are fundamental to our democracy, trust in institutions and social justice. It is unfair when someone's voices are unheard because others were funded to make theirs louder.
I would be more than happy to have an open discussion about this with anyone. Including you, Phillip. If at any point, you would be so inclined, **I would love to have a conversation with you in an open discussion or an interview format**. If not you, then anyone else at your company or anyone you might want to send my way. I think if we sat down and talked about this, despite our differences, it would show our audiences and the public that healthy discourse is possible and fruitful. We may disagree, but that doesn't make any one of us less worthy of being heard.
In the meantime, I will continue to be critical of what I believe should be criticized. I will continue doing so by supporting my claims with references to credible sources.
Thanks to all who participated in this discourse honestly and in good faith.
All the best,
THO
TL;DR
Kurzgesagt is literally evil, they are literally bought out by billionaires, the earth is flat and birds aren't real. WAKE UP SHEEPLE!
https://redd.it/10pb1q9
@r_thehatedone
future**](https://www.openphilanthropy.org/research/update-on-cause-prioritization-at-open-philanthropy/#12-long-termist-vs-near-termist-views). In addition to video creation, Kurzgesagt intends to use this funding to ***translate existing videos into a number of non-English languages***."
"to support the ***production*** **of short-form video content for platforms like TikTok and YouTube Shorts**. Some of this content will feature topics relevant to effective altruism and improving [humanity’s long-run future](https://www.openphilanthropy.org/blog/update-cause-prioritization-open-philanthropy#Long-termist_vs._near-termist_views)."
Both of these grants **fund "video production"** and only one grant also dedicates a portion of the total sum to translation. So by the very least, more than half of the $6,000,000 grant from Open Philanthropy has been dedicate to make more videos. Whether it's shorts on YouTube or Tiktok, they are still videos.
I assume good faith on your part here and guess that this is a semantic distinction without difference. You claim only two videos were ***sponsored*** by this grant, but the grant ***funds*** a lot more videos (or shorts) than that. So to dismiss the Open Philanthropy grant would be disingenuous.
After this, you go on to explain how none of this funding is significant enough to influence your values. This is a preposterous statement and if anyone tried to accuse you of that, they would have to provide extraordinary evidence that is unlikely to even exist. Which is why I have never made that claim in my videos or anywhere else. I think Kurzgesagt perfectly aligns with the values of their sponsors. That doesn't make it immune to influence. It arguable makes it even worse. It is ***because*** of your values that you receive all this significant funding. The problem is, that any channel that would try to go against your values, would not receive such funding and would not have enough resources to compete with you.
Fox News, for instance, was created as part of News Corp by conservative billionaire Rupert Murdoch to make content that appeals to conservative viewers. No liberal journalists were paid to suddenly regurgitate conservative viewpoints. Conservative journalists and news anchors were paid to do that. That doesn't make it magically not a problem anymore. It still is problematic because it amplifies specific views on a national television that are not proportionately reflected in the true demographics or don't stand the merit of arguments.
The problem with **billionaire funding is that they get to amplify their own ideas irrespective of their merit, simply because they can dump money into media companies to make content about it****.** **My critique is that this how billionaires fund influence,** **not that they make people say something they don’t believe in**. To take it back to Kurzgesagt, you took a grant from the Gates Foundation, during which you made a video praising big pharma for their big step to "save the humanity" and donate their medicine for free. In your video, you leave out a ton of historical context from the real story, mainly that big pharma companies were reluctant to make any donations at all and address neglected tropical diseases for years or decades.
Furthermore, there is a long record to criticize big pharma for, but Kurzgesagt only made a video praising it. The issue is, there are more than enough channels criticizing big pharma, but Bill Gates is not gonna fund those videos because he has financial investments in those companies and a personal belief that solutions ultimately need to have a profitable business model.
What you do in your videos when you take money from conflicting sponsors, is that you present the topics through the lens of your sponsors as if that's all there is to say about it. You do not go out of your way to eliminate this bias.
**On conflicts of interests**
In your final counter-argument, you claim that Kurzgesagt does not work unscientifically because your videos are fact-checked. Here are several problems with your
My response to Kurzgesagt
Below is my response to Kurzgesagt's response to my video.
Kurzgesagt's official response: [https://old.reddit.com/r/kurzgesagt/comments/10jlyyk/kurzgesagt\_statement\_to\_the\_conflict\_of\_interest/](https://old.reddit.com/r/kurzgesagt/comments/10jlyyk/kurzgesagt_statement_to_the_conflict_of_interest/)
Original video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjHMoNGqQTI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjHMoNGqQTI)
Hello Phillip,
Thank you very much for your response. I wasn't expecting it considering it's been about more than a month since my video was published.
I would love for this to be a part of a larger conversation about funding transparency and content integrity. I would also like to point out to everyone participating in this debate that it is possible to both enjoy your favorite content and remain critical of some its problematic aspects. Let's engage in a healthy discourse without resorting to dismissal and dishonesty.
Onto the official response.
I appreciate that you took the time to respond to my video. However, your response is largely insufficient as it dismisses several major points and focuses only on two isolated points. Allow me to go over this first and then address your counter arguments.
In your response, you counter argue against two points
​
* the funding of Kurzgesagt videos
* working with scientists financially connected to your sponsors
However, there is a range of **key points you miss out** and they even more important than just those two on their own. Namely, you don't address:
​
* criticism of **Kurzgesagt** **sponsor disclaimers and the suggestion they should come at the begging of your videos**, and not in the outro or in the description only as you disclaim currently.
* criticism that Kurzgesagt is **not transparent enough about revealing connections between their sources, scientists they consult** with and Kurzgesagt's sponsors.
* criticism that Kurzgesagt (or any other informative outlet) **should not be receiving funds from entities that have financial agenda** (profitable or charitable) in the areas you cover in your videos
* criticism that Phillip Dettmer told his viewers through Reddit comments that Kurzgesagt does not let sponsors comment on your scripts, but there are **several instances where sponsors had input on your scripts in certain video**s.
* criticism that Kurzgesagt relied on a sponsor-backed commercial entity for a major citation in Kurzgesagt's source document for a video on climate change
* criticism that Kurzgesagt portrays topics that align with their sponsors' interests through the lens that benefits the sponsors' views and interests.
Let me address your counter-arguments.
**On funding**
In your first counter-argument, you claim that 65% of Kurzgesagt's income is from your viewers. There are several major issues with this statement that I think require your further clarification.
First, you chose a period of three years, from 2020 to 2022. **Why are you limiting your numbers to just the last three years**? My video evaluates your estimated revenue streams from the moment of Kurzgesgat's incorporation in Germany in **September 2015 until about fall of 2022** when my video was finalized. Comparing numbers from just the last three years to the evaluation of a seven-year estimate is not a fair comparison.
This historical context matters, because in your response you are a large animation studio with 60 employees. But back when you where awarded grants from the Gates Foundation, Open Society, and Templeton, you went from just 5 employees to less than a half of what your workforce is today or even at the time my video was released. According to your company documents in Germany, Kurzgesagt had 10 employees in 2016, 14 in 2017, 22 in 2018, 30 in 2019 and 37 in 2020.
Also, in your 2017 Medium article on Kurzgesagt's dealing with sponsors, you admit that Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was your biggest supporter.
Most importantly, my argument wasn't that Kurzgesagt is
Who is thehatedone?
I always like to check source of content especially for video essay channels like this reporting on real events. I don't see much on the YouTube "about" tab so just curious if anyone knows who they are? (not looking for personal details, just general info)
I usually assume there's a group of people behind the channel when it comes to this type of content so I'd like to know the origin.
Thanks.
https://redd.it/10o6jum
@r_thehatedone
Congratulations on 400K subs🔥🔥🔥
Congratulations to all The Hated One community members for completion of 400K subscribers on YouTube 🔥🏆😃
https://redd.it/10gokns
@r_thehatedone
Someone found my adress with only my name
Hello I got a little story for you and maybe someone can tell me how I can protect from this.
Someone I met ( Lets name him A) told me he can find my adress with only my name (he already knew it because we are in the same class). Because we are friends I told him go ahead because I thought it would be impossible (got a pretty anonymous identity on the internet so there is no way he can find it with only google).
He went out the room and made a call, he came back and said you will get a call soon, I looked on my phone and I received one named No Caller Id, some minutes later he told me my adress.
Im wondering how this is working and how I can protect against this in the future any ideas?
https://redd.it/10eo2ou
@r_thehatedone
Closed Network Podcast - ‘The Hated One’ comes back for a fireside & bourbon conversation with Simon
https://closednetwork.io/podcast/episode-23-the-hated-one-comes-back-for-a-fireside-amp-bourbon-conversation-with-simon/
https://redd.it/10a3z6m
@r_thehatedone
Meta’s Ad Practices Ruled Illegal Under E.U. Law
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/04/technology/meta-facebook-eu-gdpr.html
https://redd.it/107ctks
@r_thehatedone
Twitter hacked, 200 million user email addresses leaked, researcher says
https://www.reuters.com/technology/twitter-hacked-200-million-user-email-addresses-leaked-researcher-says-2023-01-05/
https://redd.it/105iiyc
@r_thehatedone