On Fri, 07 Sep 2018 14:49:09 +0200 David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> wrote: > jonetsu <jonetsu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Daniel Swärd <excds@xxxxxx> wrote: > >> The whole point was the irony of an article about automated > >> censorship machines got blocked by such a machine... > > It's not a good test at all I find. Why would someone input the > > full URL in a text search box as a test ? Is that supposed to > > mimic the public access to information ? > No, it is to prove that not even the most direct search method > imaginable would have returned the article. Otherwise you can always > revert to "oh, you were using the wrong search terms for sure", "some > indexing glitch" or whatever rationale. This utterly uprooted. The most direct search method really used in day-to-day life by actual normal people and thus representing the people fully and its access to information assumes that you know at least the family name of the person you want to know about. Which materializes in a way akin to the following search criteria: "EU internet censorship Reda" Bingo ! The first item returned is the article. And if you do not know the name of the person: "EU internet censorship" Will return a lot of links to various information. These are real search criteria proving something. Not the uprooted senseless one provided by Reda herself who is perhaps gathering an audience by people stuck between Fatima Merkel and the far-right. >> It does not represent public access to information at all. > Sure. It shows that even if you try really, really hard to find the > article, the search will not be successful. It does not represent trying hard at all. It represents dumbness at best. Inputting a full URL you already know (and can directly use instead) as a search criteria to see if access to information is restricted proves nothing at all. Now if you input that URL in your browser and the result is a page that says you can't access the information, now that would very serious. > "I doubt you'll be able to bench press 10kg" "Dude, I just pressed > 50kg" "That doesn't seem like a realistic way to prove you could > press 10kg". Why press ? That's totally not efficient. Flexibility and quickness fares way better in fights, health and much more. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
