to take a less extreme example, if you search for “shop-lifting techniques” on google, or any other modern content provider, you’ll - exclusively - find moral anodised stuff about catching criminals. if you go on old internet portals or archives, you’ll find edgy indie websites telling you naughty secrets

>you’ll - exclusively - find moral anodised stuff about catching criminals

I can confirm this is false. First page Google already showed naughty secrets.

Magic of the algorithm, the poster you're replying to may be in a different legal regime which takes that sort of thing more seriously than your own.

The black-box nature of search becomes less and less satisfying as time passes.

Meanwhile, Reddit has r/shoplifting.

For all that it's been cleaned up and nerfed, it's still a delightful time capsule of an earlier Internet.

They used to, its now banned. Along with all of the other related edgy subreddits.

So, non mainstream stuff still isn't mainstream?

But was it actually not mainstream back in the day? Or even if not mainstream, your average user was still highly likely to encounter it, well going about their mainstream day which isn't true anymore.

First, it was not mainstream. Second, I run into literal nazi propaganda randomly and into literal behading videos with one search (after random find suggested it exists).

I also randomly run into write up a out how to steal cars and how to put spyware into someone else's phone.

None of that stuff is hard to find. It is just that mainstreami mainstream is not interested and it would be absurd to blame them.

I believe you're right. In part, I blame the shift of the internet's target audience. It had a serious pull of that fringe of society in the early days.

Nonetheless, content sanitization has become more and more prevalent. It's disturbing to think, of the influence of social bubbles, and algorithmic driven content proliferation. How much of this mix of content moderation + appealing to a bigger audience affects our own thoughts/opinions.

I understand that a lot of it should be sanitized. But this thought is terrifying.

I think you might be overestimating the pervasiveness of hacker culture - even now, never mind ~25 years ago.

Look to Hackers (1995) for an proxy of how well hacker culture was understood at the time. Pretty sure the sports in Space Jam (1996) got a more accurate representation than hacking got in Hackers.

The curious thing about Hackers is that, while the technical side of hacking was obviously not even wrong, the culture and ethos got a much better exposure. I mean, it actually had the Hacker Manifesto read out loud:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvK7V7U5Mck

I would even argue the technical side was better than most modern movies/tv shows (not counting mr robot). Anything looks realistic compared to ncis style 2 people 1 keyboard, lets unplug the monitor when things get hairy.

I mean sports is ... very mainstream.

phrack was definitely not mainstream. It felt like getting let in on a secret when you found out about it and figured out where to get it. Back in the day. This was before the web (or the web before google searchability of it), and before most people had heard about the internet.

There was a brief period at the dawn of the web when things were both more accessible and wilder, it's true. It was in retrospect a transitionary period.

I struggle to see how that's a bad thing. Most people don't need to be coincidentally picking up bomb-making information.

I struggle to see how it is a problem, a free and fair society should have no qualms with people having such information. And anyone dangerous would have no problem finding it out anyways. Its not like we can scrub chemistry knowledge out from public access. Not to mention most "bomb making" knowledge is also applicable to many other fields and uses.

I find the mechanics of guns and firearms fun and interesting, that doesn't make me any more dangerous than someone who has no idea how guns work.

But what’s being discussed here isn’t blocking that information, but sadness over the fact that it’s not something you’re likely to stumble upon today inadvertently. GP is very specific in talking about coming across this info while doing normal day to day things on the internet, I.e. not looking for bomb-making instructions.

Ahh.. and this is where it gets fun. You are automatically assuming that you know better how a given person should spend their time. Person might be fascinated by how a given formation absolutely hates being squeezed. You see a bomb, but he sees a rare material property. How do you decide ( and who does decide ) what information is 'sanitary' enough for the public to handle? I thought we were supposed to be our own arbiters? Or is it just imaginary freedom on increasingly more restrictive guardrails?

I genuinely dislike the current trend. I personally played with all sorts of chemicals in my dad's garage ( he was a mechanic ) and these days my interest would be at best seen with suspicion.

No one (in this thread at least) is suggesting that information shouldn’t be available to people who are seeking it.

<<I struggle to see how that's a bad thing. Most people don't need to be coincidentally picking up bomb-making information.

I might be misreading this, but to me this sentence reads as 'this information does not belong anywhere where normal people roam'. It is possible that "shoulnd't be available" is making me read it this way.

Are you familiar with the word “coincidentally?” Not trying to be rude.

It means 'by chance' and no worries. I am not a native speaker so it is a reasonable question to ask.

"<<I struggle to see how that's a bad thing. Most people don't need to be coincidentally picking up bomb-making information.

I might be misreading this, but to me this sentence reads as 'this information does not belong anywhere where normal people roam'. It is possible that "shoulnd't be available" is making me read it this way. "

I will attempt to translate your argument and hopefully clarify mine. Please correct me as needed.

You seem to be arguing that while no one is arguing that the information should not be 'somewhere', one should not be able to simply stumble on it. To that my obvious question is 'why not', because we sure seem to have a lot of otherwise offensive items that one could stumble upon by chance ( for example, some would object to a tattoo magazine being readily available in public view ). Why is personal mutilation ok and applied chemistry is taboo? Why one can be picked up coincidentally and the other not? Can you give me the line that allows for that decision to take place?

And although the question is qualified with "most" and "coincidentally", the verb 'need' clearly indicates that you do not believe it is information that should be available. The previous sentence indicating struggle how this could be a bad thing only reinforces that impression. This forces me to interpret this message as "I do not believe it is a valid need that should be available, say, at a local kiosk."

Hence my real question: who gets to decide what is kosher ( and if it is not kosher )?

I would not dream of suggesting it is me, because my tastes are not that of the general population.

I’m not even arguing one shouldn’t be able to stumble upon it. Certainly no one should be the arbiter of such a decision. I’m saying it’s not a problem that they don’t. In the same way that it’s not a problem people don’t come across, say, pictures of baby Pygmy hippos (specifically) in their day to day life.

And honestly the lack of serendipitous baby Pygmy hippos is a much bigger problem than the absence of bomb making instructions.

I actually think it’s an imperative to know how chemistry works. In a free society, knowing how to do things should not be off limits.

Unfortunately, we don’t live in a free society any more. Much of this information has been suppressed and is hard to find. That said… for those curious, here’s a whole book on making explosives:

https://archive.org/details/saxon-kurt.-fireworks-explosives....

Here’s a whole video on making a bomb:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tsxGX5F5SXg

Im a pacifist and don’t condone any violence against another human ever. But I also like fireworks

> Most people don't need to be coincidentally picking up bomb-making information.

And because they don't need to, we should censor this kind of information?

Literally unrelated to the conversation. This is about whether one is likely to inadvertently come across this info, not whether it’s available to find.

Fwiw, im mostly just lamenting the change. There is both good and bad to changing cultural norms.

It's fairly easy to find instructions on how to make guns, bombs etc online. For example, if you search for "improvised munitions", you will find many copies of this floating around:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TM_31-210_Improvised_Munitions...

And if you wanted that on paper - or on your Kindle - Amazon is happy to oblige:

https://www.amazon.com/Improvised-Munitions-Handbook-TM-210/...

Similarly, for homemade guns, there's e.g. FOSSCAD (and there are many forks of that repo on GitHub even):

https://fosscad.org/

Or for something more oldschool, search for "expedient homemade firearms". I got my paperback a few years ago from Amazon, as well (sadly gone now, but some derivative works are still around if you look).