Login

Recent searches

No recent searches

Search options

Only available when logged in.
social.bund.de is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
Dies ist der Mastodon-Server der Bundesbeauftragten für den Datenschutz und die Informationsfreiheit (BfDI).

Administered by:

Server stats:

99
active users

social.bund.de: AboutProfiles directoryPrivacy policy

Mastodon: AboutGet the appKeyboard shortcutsView source codev4.3.4

#Blocklists

0 posts0 participants0 posts today
Public
Kevin Karhan :verified:

I've made an interesting #observation re: #ChatGPT / #OpenAI...

Whilst they got sued by someone and forced to publish their #scraping #bots' #IP addresses, they actively prevent people from using and updating said #blocklist automatically by querying it.

I'm pretty shure that this violates their original settlement and that even if I query it hourly instead of once a day that this doesn't impact OpenAI's #uptime or #availability or #traffic at all since as of writing this file merely contains three lines:

52.230.152.0/24
52.233.106.0/24
20.171.206.0/24

And the downloaded file is 48 Bytes (!!!) small...

  • Meaning me using their website as a ping target is causing way more traffic to them than anything else.

IDK what you guys made off this...

  • #Personally I'm getting pissed off with wannabe-"#AI" that I'm turning more #hostile against it by the day to the point that I'm considering to point all that traffic towards #Hetzner's 10GB test file just to give both parties a middle finger...

#JustSaying...

Output ob pfBlockerNG's update logs: ===[ IPv4 Process ]================================================= [...] [ GPTbot_v4 ] Downloading update .. 403 Forbidden [ pfB_GPTbot_v4 - GPTbot_v4 ] Download FAIL
#sarcasm#Enshittification#GPT
Public
v_i_o_l_a

"Lists of predatory journals and publishers: a review for future refinement" doi.org/10.3897/ese.2024.e1181
#PredatoryPublishing #BlockLists

European Science EditingLists of predatory journals and publishers: a review for future refinementAlthough predatory publishers are increasingly recognized, universally accepted criteria for defining predatory journals are lacking. These journals challenge the scholarly community by blurring the line between legitimate and questionable publishing practices. Several lists and reports of predatory journals have been published, which offer valuable insights; however, they are not devoid of criticism. Beall’s list, although criticized for its inclusion criteria, is currently managed anony-mously and updated infrequently. Cabells’ list uses an extensive array of inclusion criteria, some of which are similar to those used in Beall’s list. Several of these cri-teria are redundant and fail to detect predatory practices, and using all of them in evaluating a journal is seldom practicable. Kscien’s list has emerged as a promising alternative for identifying predatory publishers or journals. However, it requires refinement, potentially through creating a distinct list supported by unequivocal evidence, such as accepting a fake manuscript (ascertained through a sting opera-tion). The present review seeks to catalyze research on identifying predatory jour-nals and publishers by comparing existing lists and suggesting new techniques for detecting predatory practices.
ExploreLive feeds
About