In light of yesterday's revelation from Millie Weaver, it occurred to me that https encryption will not protect you from profiling:
dig(1) prints the following IP addresses:
kotakuinaction2.win. 53 IN A 172.67.133.248
kotakuinaction2.win. 53 IN A 104.28.26.95
kotakuinaction2.win. 53 IN A 104.28.27.95
thedonald.win. 287 IN A 104.26.9.222
thedonald.win. 287 IN A 104.26.8.222
thedonald.win. 287 IN A 172.67.73.6
This means someone monitoring the network will flag you as someone with objectionable beliefs, even though they might not see the actual content passing through. Likewise for someone who only browses CNN, reddit or even Gab. I do not know if the .win network is in on it.
Everyone is being binned into sets, groups connecting to the same network are likely to hold similar views and therefore open to targeted agitation and false flags. Like what the interview says, they know what pushes your buttons, they know what makes you rage, they know what gets you worked up. None of a particular network's stance on issues are secret, so they just need to tailor propaganda to get a group working towards their goals.
Encrypted DNS will not protect you either, since it is completely dependent on the provider, not to mention a centralized solution. Furthermore, you'll still need to make a connection to the web server serving the content.
While it may be possible to defeat profiling with fake traffic generators, you yourself remains vulnerable to the networking effects of (likely deliberate) polarization.
PS. Long time lurker, and reddit spacing is atrocious.
No they don't. I've been on KiA/KiA2 for over 5 years. I have willingly exposed myself to how bad things are, and it has helped me better understand the world. Nothing I see on here makes me particularly angry.
On twitter I have already been on multiple block lists, the original GG one as well from having Airport follow me. It doesn't change much.
I look forward to Asha Logos upcoming social network if he's ever able to make an actual release of his concepts.
I may have poorly worded it, I don't mean agitation to specific individuals. The profiling merely tells them such a person exists, and if there is enough of them to bother researching into, ultimately to form a self-reinforcing network to do their bidding if exposed to tailored propaganda.
Just like how not everyone will turn into antifa thugs overnight when exposed to orange man bad, but by profiling the audience and how they are connected to other groups, you could tell if there are enough angry people to actually take active measures to right perceived wrongs, and from there try to find out how they tick if you want them to explode into action. Why some people rise up to do something isn't really important as so much as they do what are needed to do, bonus if done with the self righteous fervor of a hijacked morality framework.
The key change is that instead of dropping pamphlet fliers from the air and hoping the target takes to it as before, it is being done over the internet through interactive social media, now with realtime feedback to tailor and tune the message as required. If X group isn't receptive to the message, try another group or change the message.
Perhaps if more were more calm as you, agitprop would not work as well as it did.