I ended up in Captcha hell trying to archive this, so I'm afraid I can't provide a link.

Meta internally projected late last year that it would earn about 10% of its overall annual revenue – or $16 billion – from running advertising for scams and banned goods, internal company documents show.

A cache of previously unreported documents reviewed by Reuters also shows that the social-media giant for at least three years failed to identify and stop an avalanche of ads that exposed Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp’s billions of users to fraudulent e-commerce and investment schemes, illegal online casinos, and the sale of banned medical products.

On average, one December 2024 document notes, the company shows its platforms’ users an estimated 15 billion “higher risk” scam advertisements – those that show clear signs of being fraudulent – every day. Meta earns about $7 billion in annualized revenue from this category of scam ads each year, another late 2024 document states.

Much of the fraud came from marketers acting suspiciously enough to be flagged by Meta’s internal warning systems. But the company only bans advertisers if its automated systems predict the marketers are at least 95% certain to be committing fraud, the documents show. If the company is less certain – but still believes the advertiser is a likely scammer – Meta charges higher ad rates as a penalty, according to the documents. The idea is to dissuade suspect advertisers from placing ads.

The documents further note that users who click on scam ads are likely to see more of them because of Meta’s ad-personalization system, which tries to deliver ads based on a user’s interests.

https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortune-deluge-fraudulent-ads-documents-show-2025-11-06/

https://www.sfchronicle.com/climate/article/gavin-newsom-brazil-21131913.php?hash=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuc2ZjaHJvbmljbGUuY29tL2NsaW1hdGUvYXJ0aWNsZS9nYXZpbi1uZXdzb20tYnJhemlsLTIxMTMxOTEzLnBocA%3D%3D&time=MTc2MjQ0OTM2Mzg3Mg%3D%3D&rid=ZjZmMmQ3YjgtNjRhMy00ZmM1LWFlMmItZTNmNzM5MTExODA5&sharecount=MQ%3D%3D

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/06/climate/belem-brazi-cop30-trump.html?unlocked_article_code=1.zE8.vujv.eUZzuN_ppI0c

https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortune-deluge-fraudulent-ads-documents-show-2025-11-06/

Go with me here. Routers are routers, and servers are servers. Some people mix and match things, but generally, ideally, this is how it goes. And I agree.

But the router I just set up, the Google WiFi, has 4gb storage, 512mb of ram, a quad core CPU at 800mhz, is easy to flash, and only costs $10-15 on eBay all day long.

If you used it as only a little computer, no routing.. Then..

If I wanted to say... Set up a tailscale node at my family's house. Why spend $45-80, or even $130(!) on a raspberry pi with an Ethernet port, when the Google WiFi works just as well if not better for that job?

Maybe a tiny matrix server? Tiny web hosting?

Or, for a less ideal solution, but still reasonable. What if I wanted to set up a remote backup node for my main server? If my needs were small enough, the Google WiFi would be much more economical, although you'd need to add a USB hub to break out the USB ports. And there would be limitations obviously.

Or getting really crazy, you could potentially squeeze one or two bigger services onto a router, just to see if it's possible.. Minecraft server?

My question is. What is the best device for this? The Google WiFi is dirt cheap at $10-15, I'm about to pull the trigger on a second one just to play with. But I wanted to see if you guys had any other suggestions?

I tried searching the toh for similar devices, but even restricting it down every way I can think of, I've still got over a hundred devices to look at.

Basically, I think older router hardware is an overlooked, cheaper alternative, to raspberry pis, for some scenarios.

Scheme aims to disrupt deforestation by raising $125bn, investing it in bonds, with returns used to reward tropical forest nations for good behaviour

How could Tropical Forest Forever fund proposed at Cop30 tackle climate change?

^{Jonathan Watts (The Guardian)}

The Internet faces an existential crisis as nearly 50% of all traffic is now non-human, with AI-generated content and bots threatening to overwhelm authentic human interaction[^1]. According to recent studies, this includes automated programs responsible for 49.6% of web traffic in 2023, a trend accelerated by AI models scraping content[^1].

The problems are stark:
- Search engines flooded with AI-generated content optimized for algorithms rather than humans
- Social media platforms filled with AI "slop" and automated responses
- Genuine human content being drowned out by machine-generated noise
- Erosion of trusted information sources and shared truth

However, concrete solutions exist:

1. Technical Defenses:

- Open-source spam filtering tools like mosparo for protecting website forms
- AI scraper blocking through systems like Anubis
- Content authenticity verification via the CAI SDK[^1]

1. Community Building:

- Supporting decentralized social networks (Mastodon, Lemmy)
- Using open-source forum platforms that emphasize human moderation
- Participating in curated communities with active fact-checking[^1]

1. Individual Actions:

- Using privacy-focused browsers and search engines
- Supporting trusted news sources and independent creators
- Being conscious of data sharing and digital footprint[^1]

"While exposure to AI-generated misinformation does make people more worried about the quality of information available online, it can also increase the value they attach to outlets with reputations for credibility," notes a 2025 study by Campante[^1].

[^1]: It's FOSS - The Internet is Dying. We Can Still Stop It

The Internet is Dying. We Can Still Stop It

Almost 50% of all internet traffic are non-human already. Unchecked, it could lead to a zombie internet.

^{Theena Kumaragurunathan (It's FOSS News)}

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2025/11/06/opinion/youth-climate-corps-federal-budget-2025

Archived copies of the article:
* archive.today — charts missing

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/cop/30-years-climate-talks-progress-pitfalls-planet-peril-2025-11-06/

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-11-06/stock-market-believes-in-clean-energy-and-climate-change?accessToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzb3VyY2UiOiJTdWJzY3JpYmVyR2lmdGVkQXJ0aWNsZSIsImlhdCI6MTc2MjQzNjE0MSwiZXhwIjoxNzYzMDQwOTQxLCJhcnRpY2xlSWQiOiJUNUFWVTRHUTFZWE8wMCIsImJjb25uZWN0SWQiOiIxMkE1QzVFRUNERDg0NUJEQjVFOTM1MUE0Mzk4QTAxNCJ9.yDxqjy6AT8Xlkn2j7OvpM8srzOQrr8K-C0OJG_AFNNA

The Internet faces an existential crisis as nearly 50% of all traffic is now non-human, with AI-generated content and bots threatening to overwhelm authentic human interaction¹. According to recent studies, this includes automated programs responsible for 49.6% of web traffic in 2023, a trend accelerated by AI models scraping content¹.

The problems are stark:
- Search engines flooded with AI-generated content optimized for algorithms rather than humans
- Social media platforms filled with AI "slop" and automated responses
- Genuine human content being drowned out by machine-generated noise
- Erosion of trusted information sources and shared truth

However, concrete solutions exist:

1. Technical Defenses:

- Open-source spam filtering tools like mosparo for protecting website forms
- AI scraper blocking through systems like Anubis
- Content authenticity verification via the CAI SDK¹

1. Community Building:

- Supporting decentralized social networks (Mastodon, Lemmy)
- Using open-source forum platforms that emphasize human moderation
- Participating in curated communities with active fact-checking¹

1. Individual Actions:

- Using privacy-focused browsers and search engines
- Supporting trusted news sources and independent creators
- Being conscious of data sharing and digital footprint¹

"While exposure to AI-generated misinformation does make people more worried about the quality of information available online, it can also increase the value they attach to outlets with reputations for credibility," notes a 2025 study by Campante¹.

1. It's FOSS - The Internet is Dying. We Can Still Stop It ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

The Internet is Dying. We Can Still Stop It

Almost 50% of all internet traffic are non-human already. Unchecked, it could lead to a zombie internet.

^{Theena Kumaragurunathan (It's FOSS News)}

cross-posted from: lemmy.sdf.org/post/45192281

Archived

[...]

In a historic breach of China’s censorship infrastructure, internal data were leaked from Chinese infrastructure firms associated with the Great Firewall (GFW) in September this year. Researchers now estimate that the data has a volume of approximately 600 GB.

The material includes more than 100,000 documents, internal source code, work logs, configuration files, emails, technical manuals, and operational runbooks. The number of files in the dump is reported to be in the thousands, though exact totals vary by source.

[...]

An unexpected but critical component of the breach is the metadata embedded within documents and logs. Authorship tags, file paths, and computer hostnames have linked hundreds of documents to individual users, systems, and organizations. These human fingerprints offer unprecedented visibility into the organizational structure behind the GFW’s operation. Engineers, data analysts, lab researchers, and regional technicians are all traceable by name or system alias. Many entries refer to known ISPs, national labs, or university-affiliated nodes, suggesting that the enforcement apparatus spans a wide constellation of public-private partnerships, military-academic collaborations, and centralized policy deployment.

Together, these findings constitute a unique technical cross-section of the Chinese censorship-industrial complex, revealing not just what is filtered or how, but who enforces it, who maintains the infrastructure, and how decisions flow through the layered topology of digital control.

[...]

The current report represents only the first installment in a three-part investigative series into the unprecedented breach of China’s censorship apparatus. While this Part 1 has centered on exposing the dataset’s contents and evaluating its technical, organizational, and strategic significance, it is only the beginning. The sheer scale and complexity of the leak, over 500GB of internal GFW infrastructure data, demands a methodical, layered approach to fully grasp its implications.

The next two parts in this series will delve even deeper, uncovering the architecture of China’s censorship regime and examining the wider consequences for global digital governance.

Part 2 of the series will look into the architecture and will offer a forensic reconstruction of how the Great Firewall actually works at the technical level, mapping the core design of the censorship stack. This includes how packets are intercepted, filtered, redirected, or dropped; how apps like Psiphon and V2Ray are detected at the protocol level; and how traffic shaping is deployed based on geography, ISP, or session context.

Part 3 will the geopolitics and the fallout will address the broader implications. This breach does more than just reveal technical controls, it changes the strategic calculus of censorship resistance. We will assess how the exposure reshapes China’s ability to sustain its domestic information control and international cyber operations, and how it informs countermeasures by VPN developers, privacy advocates, and democratic governments. Ethical and legal questions will also be raised: what does responsible engagement with such data look like?

[...]

With this series, we aim to present not just the most complete picture yet of the GFW, but a roadmap for pushing back against the machinery of state censorship.

Inside the Great Firewall Part 1: The Dump - DomainTools Investigations | DTI

Analysis of the 500GB+ Great Firewall data breach revealing China’s state censorship network, VPN evasion tactics, and the operators behind it.

^{DomainTools Investigations | DTI}

cross-posted from: lemmy.sdf.org/post/45192281

Archived

[...]

In a historic breach of China’s censorship infrastructure, internal data were leaked from Chinese infrastructure firms associated with the Great Firewall (GFW) in September this year. Researchers now estimate that the data has a volume of approximately 600 GB.

The material includes more than 100,000 documents, internal source code, work logs, configuration files, emails, technical manuals, and operational runbooks. The number of files in the dump is reported to be in the thousands, though exact totals vary by source.

[...]

An unexpected but critical component of the breach is the metadata embedded within documents and logs. Authorship tags, file paths, and computer hostnames have linked hundreds of documents to individual users, systems, and organizations. These human fingerprints offer unprecedented visibility into the organizational structure behind the GFW’s operation. Engineers, data analysts, lab researchers, and regional technicians are all traceable by name or system alias. Many entries refer to known ISPs, national labs, or university-affiliated nodes, suggesting that the enforcement apparatus spans a wide constellation of public-private partnerships, military-academic collaborations, and centralized policy deployment.

Together, these findings constitute a unique technical cross-section of the Chinese censorship-industrial complex, revealing not just what is filtered or how, but who enforces it, who maintains the infrastructure, and how decisions flow through the layered topology of digital control.

[...]

The current report represents only the first installment in a three-part investigative series into the unprecedented breach of China’s censorship apparatus. While this Part 1 has centered on exposing the dataset’s contents and evaluating its technical, organizational, and strategic significance, it is only the beginning. The sheer scale and complexity of the leak, over 500GB of internal GFW infrastructure data, demands a methodical, layered approach to fully grasp its implications.

The next two parts in this series will delve even deeper, uncovering the architecture of China’s censorship regime and examining the wider consequences for global digital governance.

Part 2 of the series will look into the architecture and will offer a forensic reconstruction of how the Great Firewall actually works at the technical level, mapping the core design of the censorship stack. This includes how packets are intercepted, filtered, redirected, or dropped; how apps like Psiphon and V2Ray are detected at the protocol level; and how traffic shaping is deployed based on geography, ISP, or session context.

Part 3 will the geopolitics and the fallout will address the broader implications. This breach does more than just reveal technical controls, it changes the strategic calculus of censorship resistance. We will assess how the exposure reshapes China’s ability to sustain its domestic information control and international cyber operations, and how it informs countermeasures by VPN developers, privacy advocates, and democratic governments. Ethical and legal questions will also be raised: what does responsible engagement with such data look like?

[...]

With this series, we aim to present not just the most complete picture yet of the GFW, but a roadmap for pushing back against the machinery of state censorship.