Slack threads seem designed to ensure you can't follow a conversation without branching off into numerous sidetracks, which are hard to find when you're directly addressed.
I'm sure this is well-intentioned, but it seems also true that using this tool will give a third party, however benevolent, identification of your vulnerable website.
You're right, but this has always been the trade off with tools like this. You put some trust in the tool's authors and gain some insight in return. Remember the services that tested for Heartbleed (e.g. https://filippo.io/Heartbleed/)? Fairly similar trade-off, but still these tools were widely used.
Bad-intentioned people already have tools to do this.
My company's website has a couple dozen entries in its logs from people testing Log4Shell. We have no way of knowing if any of these are benevolent people trying to notify companies of the vulnerability, people hoping for a beg bounty, or actual attackers.
It's not hard to write a tool that scrapes Shodan.io and sends Log4Shell payloads to everything.
To be sure, the Declaration of Independence has a litany of wrongs committed by the English king, but that is hardly what it is remembered for, and "blamed monarchy on the Jews" seems an unfair summary of Common Sense.
> "blamed monarchy on the Jews" seems an unfair summary of Common Sense.
"for the quiet and rural lives of the first Patriarchs have a snappy something in them, which vanishes when we come to the history of Jewish royalty" [1]
"Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry." [1]
Those are just the first I found, take a look yourself.
Common Sense was "the most incendiary and popular pamphlet of the entire revolutionary era."[2]. This is a nice way of saying he was a propagandist. The work is reminiscent of "Yellow Journalism" or modern day political conspiracy theories. Another theory of his, that really got the crowd going, was that the King was a secret catholic.
> the Declaration of Independence has a litany of wrongs committed by the English king, but that is hardly what it is remembered for
It is remembered for the PreAmble, which is why I thought it was worth mentioning. The historian makes the claim that most of the charges/grievances in the body of the document were knowingly false/without merit in order to 'pad the brief'.
Well, read on a little. The text quoted clearly blames monarchy on the Heathens. Paine then recounts the history of monarchy in the Old Testament, with an example of god Himself speaking against it as a form of idolatry, his point being not that the Jews are the source of monarchy but that scripture is plainly opposed to it. Concluding that section, Paine writes "And a man hath good reason to believe that there is as much of kingcraft as priestcraft in withholding the scripture from the public in popish countries. For monarchy in every instance is the popery of government." As a good 18th-century Protestant, Paine was of course against "popery", yet the historian doesn't claim Paine blamed monarchy on the Catholics.
The book itself was well-reviewed, but the takeaways are a bit disturbing.
> The text quoted clearly blames monarchy on the Heathens. Paine then recounts the history of monarchy in the Old Testament
"Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews, for which a curse in reserve is denounced against them. The history of that transaction is worth attending to."
I've now linked several flagrantly anti-semitic passages of Common Sense. If those quotes didn't convince you, nothing will and I really don't really want to discuss further.
> Paine blamed monarchy on the Catholics
It's more that he claims the King of England is a secret catholic/papist.
There are other possibilities than "they lied". The most likely explanation is that the branch in India used tactics that were specifically forbidden by corporate policy formulated in the United States, that corporate management was unaware that it took place, and is now plenty embarrassed to hear that it did.
It's not necessarily true, by the way, that they wouldn't have gotten flack from Congress if they'd initially testified that they use sales and product data only they possess to find out which third-party products are both profitable and vulnerable to lower-cost competition, use it again to design competing house brands that are identical to the third party products down to the smallest detail, and follow that up by using their website to promote the knockoff products as preferable to the third party products they've ripped off. This is not a standard industry practice and would likely not be defensible as "It's just a house brand, like Safeway Soup. What's the big deal?"
I have a problem getting to his point when the examples he shows at the start are so unlike what I see when I enter the same search phrases.
"COVID-19 trends in Palm Beach" didn't bring up any hotel listings. Instead I get statistics, cases, and a map of cases from the New York Times, and after that a list of ordinary links.
"the walking dead season 11" showed an ad from AMCPlus.com, which is fairly understandable since it's totally on point, followed by regular links, the first to wikipedia.
I know that what individuals see is customized to some extent, but I can't imagine what sort of search history he has that would get the results he shows.
If his examples are not typical, it seems possible his premise is flawed.
