From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Become Worthless (To Tech Companies)
====================================

Tech companies and their executives have, broadly, moved to align
themselves with investors and adopted a posture of, often, disdain or
outright hostility towards their users and employees. If tech
companies don't value you, why provide value to them? If they back
political positions hostile to your interests, why not return that
hostility?

I'm not arguing for boycotts, I know that people are bound to
different platforms for different, compelling reasons. What I am
arguing for is that, given the opportunity, you try and reduce the
value they can extract from you. That's very often your data, but it
can also be a direct financial relationship.

Signing up for a service? Well, your birthday is January 1, 1970.

Your email address? Give them a throwaway or use a different alias
for every service. Your name? Do they need it? Maybe it's
James Smith. Or John Smith. Or Mary Smith. Or Patricia Smith. Phone
number? 321 is a valid area code. Throw it and seven other digits in.
Don't need the account long term? Delete it. Make all of your privacy
settings as restrictive as possible. Turn off AI features. Opt out of everything that defaults to opt in.

Live in California? Request your personal data--you may not need it,
but you do need them to waste their resources handling the request.
Delete yourself from data brokers with the state's Delete Act
platform.

Delete Act platform
<https://privacy.ca.gov/drop/>

Block their ads as best you can. Your cookie preferences are
"Reject All", always. It's their responsibility to improve their
product(s), it's not your responsibility to provide them with
personal information that they claim will help them do so. Install
ad-blockers for your friends and family and teach them how to use
them. Block at the network level--Pi-hole, AdGuard Home,
NextDNS--pick one.

Block their ads
<https://www.coryd.dev/posts/2023/i-block-ads>

Block their crawlers as best you can. Do you have to use or choose to
use AI products? Why not use every single one of those tokens
available to your subsidized subscription? Did your search engine
build in a "free" AI product? Ask it as many useless questions as
you'd like. Getting emails from AI agents? Why not chat with them and
lead them on until they hit a billing wall? You can block their whole
TLD when you get bored.

Block their crawlers <https://www.coryd.dev/posts/2024/go-ahead-and-block-ai-web-crawlers>

Cancel your streaming services. Buy music again. Get a library card
and check out Blu-rays and DVDs. Maybe you rip them, maybe you don't.
Buy ebooks from any vendor that doesn't apply DRM.

Buy music again
<https://www.coryd.dev/posts/2024/buying-music>

Use tech platforms based outside of the US. Self-hosting things? Use
a provider outside of the US for that as well. Support indie
developers. They're more responsive and charge a fair price for great
software. Buy subscriptions on the company's website and don't let
the app store get a cut.

Use tech platforms based outside of the US <https://www.coryd.dev/posts/2025/alternatives-to-us-tech-platforms>

Wait as long as you reasonably can between hardware upgrades. Run an
open operating system (if you can'and not one developed by a
fascist). Buy refurbished or used hardware. Repair what you can.

Fascist operating systems!
<https://stopomarchy.org>

Do you have to use a big social platform? Click on all of the ads you
see or click on some of them, but don't buy anything. Want it? Open
your browser and buy it without the attribution from the app.

Subscribe to RSS feeds. Publish RSS feeds. Post on your site first
and send links out to platforms.

See someone or a business using AI art or branding? Gently let them
know that it looks like a caricature of a Men's Health cover. Did you
get an AI agent when you called a business or open a chat? Ask them
about programming questions or chat them up--get those vendor costs
up--and then ask for the person you wanted to talk to in the first
place. Tell that person that the chatbot sucks.

Is your healthcare provider taking notes using AI? Opt out of that
and explain why.

Opt out of arbitration (many terms of service let you do it via email
or a letter within 30 days of signing up).

Use virtual cards if you can. Cancel any subscriptions you can. If
they give you a retention offer, take it and then cancel as soon as
it expires.

Don't sign in with Google or Apple or Facebook. They get data out of
it and lock you into their platform.

Don't do unpaid labor for platforms. Was this helpful? Don't bother
answering that. Skip the survey, reject the review request and don't
rate anything.

Use the website, not the app. There's less telemetry, fewer
permissions and no push notifications.

From:
<https://www.coryd.dev/posts/2026/become-worthless-to-tech-companies>
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2026-10-18, Ben Collver <[email protected]> wrote:

Tech companies and their executives have, broadly, moved to align
themselves with investors and adopted a posture of, often, disdain or outright hostility towards their users and employees. If tech
companies don't value you, why provide value to them? If they back
political positions hostile to your interests, why not return that
hostility?

I like this. The list is missing one additional one: tax the rich. The
tech oligopoly and the billionaire oligarchs intersect broadly. They
have gotten too powerful and too greedy. Let's put em back in their
place and get them focused on creating usable software instead of the wealth-extraction ecosystems they've built, to wit:

* the whole microsoft O365+copilot+sharepoint shitpile
* Oracle's legendary rapacious platform
* Qualcomm+VMWare price gouging
* Apple's one way data imports, your pics will never emerge
* I'm sure I'm missing dozens more here

Win11 is unusable. iOS is hard to quit intentionally. Social media is a cesspool of political manipulation and meme recycling adware engagement hostility. Only Usenet remains the reliable dumpsterfire of
curmudgeonly antisocial kindergarten sniping we know and love, ha ha.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Retrograde wrote:

On 2026-10-18, Ben Collver <[email protected]> wrote:

Tech companies and their executives have, broadly, moved to align
themselves with investors and adopted a posture of, often, disdain or
outright hostility towards their users and employees. If tech
companies don't value you, why provide value to them? If they back
political positions hostile to your interests, why not return that
hostility?

I like this. The list is missing one additional one: tax the rich.

Oh no, that falls under 'unusual' in the gamut of cruel & unusual.
There's nothing a billionaire wants less than a 10% property tax
bleeding them to death in 10 years except that they have that glimmering
hope of becoming delightfully poor & will be overlooked for a year.

What I propose is: "Eat the rich."

It would work this way: Collect over $1 trillion in wealth, and you will
be subsumed. Particulized, annihilated and disintegrated, and taken out
in a dustbin. How do you like it?
--
Can you strip away so we may start again?
"There’s a switch and they don't
seem authentic or themselves. It
feels like I’m an unnecessary
body and it’s a waste of time to
even be there." -- Grim, playful Blaine.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Ben Collver <[email protected]> writes:

Become Worthless (To Tech Companies)
====================================

I'm doing my part!!!
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Ben Collver <[email protected]> quoted:

Phone number? 321 is a valid area code. Throw it and seven other
digits in.

Unfortunately these days they're likely to try and send SMSs to it
for MFA, so you have to give them a correct phone number. Then they
can likely look that up and find where you lied about your other
personal details. For this reason I often give up and look for
alternatives if a phone number is demanded by one of these
untrustworthy big-tech websites.

Don't need the account long term? Delete it.

However sometimes they later make more personal info required, like
a phone number, that's only required when opening new accounts. So
you'd be better off keeping your old anonymous one if you need an
account again later.
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 12:03:27 -0600
Blaine <[email protected]> wrote:

What I propose is: "Eat the rich."

Pretty sure those guys are high in cholesterol ... and feces.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc


In line with the OP's thought...

Google has for a long time constructed URLs that it returns in response
to web search queries such that the organic URL of the response is
proxied back through Google with the organic URL as data. There have
been various work-arounds for those who don't want to have their clicks tracked.

Some of those work-arounds were imparied when Google compelled use of javascript in the browser to submit a search request.

Now search results are still similarly constructed, proxying clicks
back through Google. But now the organic URL appears to be encrypted.

Does anyone have any info on decrypting or unpacking the organic URL
that Google now includes as data in a search result?

Example of proxy reply from Google, line-broken to clarify the
encrypted URL:

https://www.google.ca/url?esrc=s&opi=89978449&q=&rct=j&sa=U&uoh=3&

url=CAESnQEB6zswFTVHLEl_-9MfBAUFxVDh7vBblfrqajsDFqzRmBxg9KmzK2dtjP_vwqmvNoQLo9TMHp9417vOUBjwoPP6TTqOeCLB-u07AwLAWheT2dAArNWjPHeGuXWxwYdnqwcBCuoLrk7lNyrD82tYgnAN7wa2Z1dmhwdjxL3DW-rTDQzz5ZkzbSPMXO3yP5FN8728kFG5qKr4GW0kUuVi


&ved=2ahUKEwj13-um8seXAxVwNoYAHbuRGTsQFnoECBgQAg&usg=AOvVaw2vcoO0YKYuaoWx3jYRnSLy
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

I don't have a way to unpack Google's encrypted redirect URL, so this isn't an answer to the protocol question. But I recognise the broader theme of having to trust infrastructure we can't fully control.

I've started building websites again with AI help. The coding hurdle is much smaller; the harder questions are still human ones: what is the site for, what should it feel like, and do the parts cohere? That gives me more agency over what I make, but it doesn't remove my dependence on accounts, hosting and platforms to get it to people.

So perhaps creative agency and independence from the services underneath it are separate questions. I've made a six-episode, non-commercial series from that website-building experience, starting here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKcH2jBbzaso. I'm Martin Davies-Roundhill, the creator on End Up Here.

Do you see those two kinds of independence differently?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2026-10-20, Mike Spencer wrote:

In line with the OP's thought...

Google has for a long time constructed URLs that it returns in response
to web search queries such that the organic URL of the response is
proxied back through Google with the organic URL as data. There have
been various work-arounds for those who don't want to have their clicks tracked.

Some of those work-arounds were imparied when Google compelled use of javascript in the browser to submit a search request.

Now search results are still similarly constructed, proxying clicks
back through Google. But now the organic URL appears to be encrypted.

Does anyone have any info on decrypting or unpacking the organic URL
that Google now includes as data in a search result?

Example of proxy reply from Google, line-broken to clarify the
encrypted URL:

https://www.google.ca/url?esrc=s&opi=89978449&q=&rct=j&sa=U&uoh=3&

url=CAESnQEB6zswFTVHLEl_-9MfBAUFxVDh7vBblfrqajsDFqzRmBxg9KmzK2dtjP_vwqmvNoQLo9TMHp9417vOUBjwoPP6TTqOeCLB-u07AwLAWheT2dAArNWjPHeGuXWxwYdnqwcBCuoLrk7lNyrD82tYgnAN7wa2Z1dmhwdjxL3DW-rTDQzz5ZkzbSPMXO3yP5FN8728kFG5qKr4GW0kUuVi

&ved=2ahUKEwj13-um8seXAxVwNoYAHbuRGTsQFnoECBgQAg&usg=AOvVaw2vcoO0YKYuaoWx3jYRnSLy

I have no helpful answer to this, but there's one relevant observation:
it's not just the URL that is being encoded, if it even is being encoded
at all (it might be server-side this time?). Reloading a search page
generates a *different* URL parameter for the same target.

*Sigh*. NoScript used to come with a surrogate for Google Web Search to
handle this, but yeah, it'd have to be decodable client-side. But maybe
it actually is, and this is just some additional timing or request-based information that's being included there...
--
Nuno Silva
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc


Nuno Silva <[email protected]d> writes:

On 2026-10-20, Mike Spencer wrote:

In line with the OP's thought...

Google has for a long time constructed URLs that it returns in response
to web search queries such that the organic URL of the response is
proxied back through Google with the organic URL as data. There have
been various work-arounds for those who don't want to have their clicks
tracked.

Some of those work-arounds were imparied when Google compelled use of
javascript in the browser to submit a search request.

Now search results are still similarly constructed, proxying clicks
back through Google. But now the organic URL appears to be encrypted.

Does anyone have any info on decrypting or unpacking the organic URL
that Google now includes as data in a search result?

Example of proxy reply from Google, line-broken to clarify the
encrypted URL:

https://www.google.ca/url?esrc=s&opi=89978449&q=&rct=j&sa=U&uoh=3&

url=CAESnQEB6zswFTVHLEl_-9MfBAUFxVDh7vBblfrqajsDFqzRmBxg9KmzK2dtjP_vwqmvNoQLo9TMHp9417vOUBjwoPP6TTqOeCLB-u07AwLAWheT2dAArNWjPHeGuXWxwYdnqwcBCuoLrk7lNyrD82tYgnAN7wa2Z1dmhwdjxL3DW-rTDQzz5ZkzbSPMXO3yP5FN8728kFG5qKr4GW0kUuVi


&ved=2ahUKEwj13-um8seXAxVwNoYAHbuRGTsQFnoECBgQAg&usg=AOvVaw2vcoO0YKYuaoWx3jYRnSLy

I have no helpful answer to this, but there's one relevant observation:
it's not just the URL that is being encoded, if it even is being encoded
at all (it might be server-side this time?). Reloading a search page generates a *different* URL parameter for the same target.

I hadn't got as far as nticing that. I suppose it would be too much
to hope that one of the other data objects in the full URL (ved=...,
opi=... etc) is a one-time key.

*Sigh*. NoScript used to come with a surrogate for Google Web Search to handle this, but yeah, it'd have to be decodable client-side. But maybe
it actually is, and this is just some additional timing or request-based information that's being included there...

Thanks for the reply. Where an I go to look for adversarial gwgle
hackers? Google has morphed from friend to adversary.
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

The command line is like language. The GUI is like shopping.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Mike Spencer might want to investigate did the Surfraw persons produce something which he wants.

"Surfraw provides a fast unix command line interface to a variety of pop‐
ular WWW search engines and other artifacts of power. It reclaims
google, altavista, dejanews, [. . .] and
many others from the false‐prophet, pox‐infested heathen lands of html‐
forms, placing these wonders where they belong, deep in unix heartland,
as god loving extensions to the shell."
says
info surfraw

(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2026-10-22, Cóilín Nioclásín Glostéir wrote:

Mike Spencer might want to investigate did the Surfraw persons produce something which he wants.

"Surfraw provides a fast unix command line interface to a variety of pop‐
ular WWW search engines and other artifacts of power. It reclaims
google, altavista, dejanews, [. . .] and
many others from the false‐prophet, pox‐infested heathen lands of html‐
forms, placing these wonders where they belong, deep in unix heartland,
as god loving extensions to the shell."
says
info surfraw

(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)

Last I checked, surfraw merely opened a browser, at least for some of
the things it supports. Or did I miss something?

(It still is a good tool in that way, although these days if I've got
the GUI browser open nearby, I'll just use "bookmark
keywords". SeaMonkey has that and Elinks too (different name there,
probably).)
--
Nuno Silva
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2026-10-22, Mike Spencer wrote:

Nuno Silva <[email protected]d> writes:

On 2026-10-20, Mike Spencer wrote:

In line with the OP's thought...

Google has for a long time constructed URLs that it returns in response
to web search queries such that the organic URL of the response is
proxied back through Google with the organic URL as data. There have
been various work-arounds for those who don't want to have their clicks
tracked.

Some of those work-arounds were imparied when Google compelled use of
javascript in the browser to submit a search request.

Now search results are still similarly constructed, proxying clicks
back through Google. But now the organic URL appears to be encrypted.

Does anyone have any info on decrypting or unpacking the organic URL
that Google now includes as data in a search result?

Example of proxy reply from Google, line-broken to clarify the
encrypted URL:

https://www.google.ca/url?esrc=s&opi=89978449&q=&rct=j&sa=U&uoh=3&

url=CAESnQEB6zswFTVHLEl_-9MfBAUFxVDh7vBblfrqajsDFqzRmBxg9KmzK2dtjP_vwqmvNoQLo9TMHp9417vOUBjwoPP6TTqOeCLB-u07AwLAWheT2dAArNWjPHeGuXWxwYdnqwcBCuoLrk7lNyrD82tYgnAN7wa2Z1dmhwdjxL3DW-rTDQzz5ZkzbSPMXO3yP5FN8728kFG5qKr4GW0kUuVi


&ved=2ahUKEwj13-um8seXAxVwNoYAHbuRGTsQFnoECBgQAg&usg=AOvVaw2vcoO0YKYuaoWx3jYRnSLy

I have no helpful answer to this, but there's one relevant observation:
it's not just the URL that is being encoded, if it even is being encoded
at all (it might be server-side this time?). Reloading a search page
generates a *different* URL parameter for the same target.

I hadn't got as far as nticing that. I suppose it would be too much
to hope that one of the other data objects in the full URL (ved=...,
opi=... etc) is a one-time key.

I'd have to test more, some of the other parameters can be removed, but
not all, maybe the ones that are required include a key.

BTW, the different URL parameters seemed to share the same prefix, does
this pattern look like something specific?

*Sigh*. NoScript used to come with a surrogate for Google Web Search to
handle this, but yeah, it'd have to be decodable client-side. But maybe
it actually is, and this is just some additional timing or request-based
information that's being included there...

Thanks for the reply. Where an I go to look for adversarial gwgle
hackers? Google has morphed from friend to adversary.

s@adversary@evil@
--
Nuno Silva
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

I never use Surfraw. Its manpage makes it sound as if it is written by
persons who could dislike Google but who insist on using Google (!),
so maybe a new version of Surfraw or a new project by the same persons
might be an alternative to simply not using a Google search engine
(which, frankly is an obvious choice if one does not like a Google
search engine). It seems that many persons use Google. Cf. e.g. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/claran_de_fhrithealaiche-lin/deanta_air_an_2026-10-12/dar_le_rmagic/reports/REFSITE.html
(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2026-10-23, Cóilín Nioclásín Glostéir wrote:

I never use Surfraw. Its manpage makes it sound as if it is written by persons who could dislike Google but who insist on using Google (!),
so maybe a new version of Surfraw or a new project by the same persons
might be an alternative to simply not using a Google search engine
(which, frankly is an obvious choice if one does not like a Google
search engine). It seems that many persons use Google. Cf. e.g. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/claran_de_fhrithealaiche-lin/deanta_air_an_2026-10-12/dar_le_rmagic/reports/REFSITE.html
(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)

It's a convenient way to open searches from the command line, that's for
sure.

It's possible Julian Assange merely wanted a consistent and fast way to
do that. Browsers have had "search plugin" support for some time, but
that tends to be specific to their UI, probably not so easy to extend
compared to an utility like surfraw, and definitely not as easy to
invoke in a shell as surfraw is.
--
Nuno Silva
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2