On many forums. Cough reddit. You can barely say anything slightly spicy without a warning/ban so people are constantly talking in riddles to say more sinister stuff especially if there is implication of encouraging direct action. This is like that. At 30khz it says "get your jammers out!"
To a dog the whistle is explicit. (Not using dog as a derogatory or complimentary term here... more the fact the dog can hear the high frequency)
I'm playing with a new "AI browser" these days (Dia), so here's an excerpt from its interpretation of how it could be seen as a dog whistle:
> There are a few ways this lands:
> • Benign interpretation: it’s a factual note from teardown reports, relevant to understanding capabilities and privacy implications.
> • Critical interpretation: in context of posts about jamming or blinding cameras, component details function as implicit guidance for defeating them, which some view as incitement.
> • Political reading: emphasizing hidden/“obfuscated” tracking signals an anti‑surveillance stance and rallies opponents of privatized policing
That seems fair to me, but to be clear - I didn't mean to hide that. I wanted to give people who might be considering action a warning of a hidden anti-theft measure that could get them in trouble while stopping short of encouraging it.
I can see the justification to act, and I generally agree. The risk/reward just isn't right for me.
On many forums. Cough reddit. You can barely say anything slightly spicy without a warning/ban so people are constantly talking in riddles to say more sinister stuff especially if there is implication of encouraging direct action. This is like that. At 30khz it says "get your jammers out!"
To a dog the whistle is explicit. (Not using dog as a derogatory or complimentary term here... more the fact the dog can hear the high frequency)
Ah, gotcha. I'm familiar with the term, I just didn't see how it could be interpreted that way.
Thanks :)
I'm playing with a new "AI browser" these days (Dia), so here's an excerpt from its interpretation of how it could be seen as a dog whistle:
> There are a few ways this lands: > • Benign interpretation: it’s a factual note from teardown reports, relevant to understanding capabilities and privacy implications. > • Critical interpretation: in context of posts about jamming or blinding cameras, component details function as implicit guidance for defeating them, which some view as incitement. > • Political reading: emphasizing hidden/“obfuscated” tracking signals an anti‑surveillance stance and rallies opponents of privatized policing
That seems fair to me, but to be clear - I didn't mean to hide that. I wanted to give people who might be considering action a warning of a hidden anti-theft measure that could get them in trouble while stopping short of encouraging it.
I can see the justification to act, and I generally agree. The risk/reward just isn't right for me.