Wired's 2019 article highlights how fan communities, specifically those on Archive of Our Own (AO3), a fan-created and run platform for fanfiction, excel at organizing vast amounts of information online, often surpassing commercially driven efforts. AO3's robust tagging system, built by and for fans, allows for incredibly granular and flexible categorization of creative works, enabling users to find specific niches and explore content in ways that traditional search engines and commercially designed tagging systems struggle to replicate. This success stems from the fans' deep understanding of their own community's needs and their willingness to maintain and refine the system collaboratively, demonstrating the power of passionate communities to build highly effective and specialized organizational tools.
TMSU is a command-line tool that lets you tag files and directories, creating a virtual filesystem based on those tags. Instead of relying on a file's physical location, you can organize and access files through a flexible tag-based system. TMSU supports various commands for tagging, untagging, listing files by tag, and navigating the virtual filesystem. It offers features like autocompletion, regular expression matching for tags, and integration with find. This allows for powerful and dynamic file management based on user-defined criteria, bypassing the limitations of traditional directory structures.
Hacker News users generally praised TMSU for its speed, simplicity, and effectiveness, especially compared to more complex solutions. One commenter highlighted its efficiency for managing a large photo collection, appreciating the ability to tag files based on date and other criteria. Others found its clear documentation and intuitive use of find commands beneficial. Some expressed interest in similar terminal-based tagging solutions, mentioning TagSpaces as a cross-platform alternative and bemoaning the lack of a modern GUI for TMSU. A few users questioned the longevity of the project, given the last commit being two years prior, while others pointed out the stability of the software and the infrequency of needed updates for such a tool.
A security vulnerability, dubbed "0-click," allowed remote attackers to deanonymize users of various communication platforms, including Signal, Discord, and others, by simply sending them a message. Exploiting flaws in how these applications handled media files, specifically embedded video previews, the attacker could execute arbitrary code on the target's device without any interaction from the user. This code could then access sensitive information like the user's IP address, potentially revealing their identity. While the vulnerability affected the Electron framework underlying these apps, rather than the platforms themselves, the impact was significant as it bypassed typical security measures and allowed complete deanonymization with no user interaction. This vulnerability has since been patched.
Hacker News commenters discuss the practicality and impact of the described 0-click deanonymization attack. Several express skepticism about its real-world applicability, noting the attacker needs to be on the same local network, which significantly limits its usefulness compared to other attack vectors. Some highlight the importance of the disclosure despite these limitations, as it raises awareness of potential vulnerabilities. The discussion also touches on the technical details of the exploit, with some questioning the "0-click" designation given the requirement for the target to join a group call. Others point out the responsibility of Electron, the framework used by the affected apps, for not sandboxing UDP sockets effectively, and debate the trade-offs between security and performance. A few commenters discuss potential mitigations and the broader implications for user privacy in online communication platforms.
The blog post argues that file systems, particularly hierarchical ones, are a form of hypermedia that predates the web. It highlights how directories act like web pages, containing links (files and subdirectories) that can lead to other content or executable programs. This linking structure, combined with metadata like file types and modification dates, allows for navigation and information retrieval similar to browsing the web. The post further suggests that the web's hypermedia capabilities essentially replicate and expand upon the fundamental principles already present in file systems, emphasizing a deeper connection between these two technologies than commonly recognized.
Hacker News users largely praised the article for its clear explanation of file systems as a foundational hypermedia system. Several commenters highlighted the elegance and simplicity of this concept, often overlooked in the modern web's complexity. Some discussed the potential of leveraging file system principles for improved web experiences, like decentralized systems or simpler content management. A few pointed out limitations, such as the lack of inherent versioning in basic file systems and the challenges of metadata handling. The discussion also touched on related concepts like Plan 9 and the semantic web, contrasting their approaches to linking and information organization with the basic file system model. Several users reminisced about early computing experiences and the directness of navigating files and folders, suggesting a potential return to such simplicity.
Favicons, small icons associated with websites, are a valuable tool in OSINT research because they can persist even after a site is taken down or significantly altered. They can be used to identify related sites, track previous versions of a website, uncover hidden services or connected infrastructure, and verify ownership or association between seemingly disparate online entities. By leveraging search engines, browser history, and specialized tools, investigators can use favicons as digital fingerprints to uncover connections and gather intelligence that might otherwise be lost. This persistence makes them a powerful resource for reconstructing online activity and building a more complete picture of a target.
Hacker News users discussed the utility of favicons in OSINT research, generally agreeing with the article's premise. Some highlighted the usefulness of favicons for identifying related sites or tracking down defunct websites through archived favicon databases like Shodan. Others pointed out limitations, noting that favicons can be easily changed, intentionally misleading, or hosted on third-party services, complicating attribution. One commenter suggested using favicons in conjunction with other OSINT techniques for a more robust investigation, while another offered a practical tip for quickly viewing a site's favicon using the curl -I command. A few users also discussed the potential privacy implications of browser fingerprinting using favicons, suggesting it as a potential avenue for future research or concern.
Summary of Comments ( 35 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43137627
Hacker News commenters generally agree with the article's premise, praising AO3's tagging system and its user-driven nature. Several highlight the importance of understanding user needs and empowering them with flexible tools, contrasting this with top-down information architecture imposed by tech companies. Some point out the value of "folksonomies" (user-generated tagging systems) and how they can be more effective than rigid, pre-defined categories. A few commenters mention the potential downsides, like the need for moderation and the possibility of tag inconsistencies, but overall the sentiment is positive, viewing AO3 as a successful example of community-driven organization. Some express skepticism about the scalability of this approach for larger, more general-purpose platforms.
The Hacker News post linking to the Wired article "Fans Are Better Than Tech at Organizing Information Online" has generated a moderate number of comments, many of which delve into the nuances of fan-driven organization versus technology-driven solutions. No single overwhelmingly compelling comment stands out, but several contribute interesting perspectives.
Several commenters agree with the premise of the article, highlighting the passion and dedication of fan communities. They point to the meticulous tagging, categorization, and cross-referencing efforts within fandoms as evidence of their superior organizational skills. One commenter specifically mentions the detailed documentation often found in fan wikis, surpassing even official sources in depth and accuracy. Another notes how fans often tackle complex organizational challenges out of sheer love for the source material, a motivation often lacking in purely technical projects.
However, other commenters offer counterpoints, arguing that comparing fan organization to general-purpose tech solutions is a false equivalence. They suggest that fans operate within a specific, self-defined scope, with a shared understanding of relevant information and criteria. This makes their task fundamentally different from organizing the vast, chaotic expanse of the internet. One commenter points out that fans often organize around a limited and well-defined corpus, making the task more manageable compared to organizing information on the open web.
A recurring theme in the comments is the trade-off between human curation and algorithmic organization. While acknowledging the strengths of fan-driven systems, some commenters emphasize the scalability issues inherent in manual processes. They argue that while fans excel at detailed curation within niche areas, algorithms are better suited for handling massive datasets and evolving information landscapes. One comment suggests that ideal solutions might lie in combining human expertise with technological tools, leveraging the strengths of both approaches.
The discussion also touches upon the social aspects of fan organization. Several comments note the sense of community and shared purpose that drives these efforts, contrasting it with the often impersonal nature of technology-driven platforms. One commenter points out the collaborative nature of fan projects, allowing for collective intelligence and distributed effort.
Finally, some commenters raise concerns about the sustainability and longevity of fan-driven archives. They question the reliance on volunteer labor and the potential for projects to become dormant or disappear entirely. They suggest that more robust infrastructure and institutional support might be necessary to ensure the long-term preservation of these valuable resources.
In summary, the comments offer a balanced perspective on the article's central argument, acknowledging the impressive organizational capabilities of fan communities while also recognizing the limitations and challenges of scaling such efforts. The discussion highlights the need for nuanced understanding of the different strengths and weaknesses of human and technological approaches to information organization.