Ryan Dawson breaks down the facts of 9/11

Ryan Dawson of the Anti-Neocon Report was interviewed by Fresh&Fit on May 5th, 2023, regarding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks upon the United States. Ryan is an excellent researcher who has devoted an enormous amount of time studying this event and, most importantly, who was involved in the planning, financing and execution of the attacks as well as the aftermath of the attack. Much of the interview is spent covering Ryan's excellent five hour documentary video, The Empire Unmasked.

Ryan Dawson REVEALS 9/11 Coverup By US Intel Agencies, Saudis & Israel! (PART 1)

Part 2 of this interview should take place this week.

From uMatrix to xiMatrix to... paraMatrix?

When Raymond Hill stopped working on uMatrix (uM) to focus on uBlock Origin (uBO), he disappointed quite few of us. I have always thought that uMatrix was easier to use despite that the reverse was supposed to be the case.

xiMatrix was born as a result of uMatrix being put into hibernation, the project being a simplified fork of uMatrix which has gained some well deserved attention. More recently a friend of mine ('Wrongthink') forked xiMatrix and created paraMatrix which promises to improve upon the feature-set of the former.

Several people, all smarter then me, have posited that uBlock is not capable of the granular filtering offered by uMatrix and therefore the latter is still necessary for us privacy advocates to which i have argued that anything you can do with uMatrix you can do with uBlock, however dong so is not as simple as it is with the point-n-click UI of uMatrix and instead requires the creation of custom filters (see the "My Filters" tab of the UI) which can block resources on a per-file basis, or per-file per-host.

At one time i saw both uBlock and uMatrix as necessary, the former being configured to handle static blocking and the latter for dynamic blocking (until very recently i always thought the 2 played well together). As vastly more powerful privacy protections were built into Firefox however, and given my obligatory usage of the 'arkenfox' user.js, i began to question the necessity of uMatrix and eventually dropped it, even from my "advanced" Firefox privacy guide. Part of my reasoning was "the fewer extensions, the better" logic and part of it was due to the greatly enhanced anti-fingerprinting tech added to Firefox, as well as state partitioning which isolates browser storage (cookies) per host.

Yes, uMatrix offers easier and more granular protection over uBlock from its pop-up interface with its ability to control CSS, cookies, XHR and media with just a click of the mouse rather than having to write custom filters, but i saw no point in blocking CSS, which will transform the majority of websites into a pile of unintelligible rubble, or 1st party media which is no longer an annoyance given the option to block auto-play in Firefox.

Regarding the cookie filtering ability of uMatrix, this storage can be controlled with Firefox natively on a per-host and per-session basis if one desires, though i personally don't see an overwhelming need to bother with this any longer given that this storage is siloed (for the most part) assuming one has enabled Enhanced Tracking Protection (ETP) and set it to "Strict".

Both xiMatrix and paraMatrix have extended the capability of uMatrix to include font filtering and i think that alone may make them quite attractive. As for me, i do this with a custom filter in uBlock (see my uBlock Origin Suggested Settings guide if interested).

Regarding graphical content, i think it's nice that paraMatrix separates images from the media category which xiMatrix doesn't do. I'm not sure that's of value to me personally, but i'm sure others will appreciate it.

As for XHR (XMLHttpRequest), that's dependent upon JavaScript which i disable globally and allow on a per-site basis.

So given that i always configured uMatrix to allow CSS globally and allow all 1st party images, media and frames, and given the remaining overlap in the functionality offered by uBlock when it's configured to operate in its advanced mode, and given all the other functionality offered by uBlock, especially the filter lists, it didn't seem to make make much sense to continue using uMatrix.

I would also posit that the modern web, being the shit-hole that it is, is only going to continue to get worse and maintaining a reasonable sense of privacy, much less anonymity, which is already essentially impossible, is going to continue to get harder and harder. If one wishes to continue accessing the clear-web, one is going to be forced to make concessions. That said, anyone concerned with privacy (and everyone ought to be) can and should mitigate as many threats as they are comfortably able to given their threat model. As for me, i can see myself largely abandoning the clear-web at some point in the future and moving to some distributed tech that isn't affected as much by corporate centralization and censorship.

Having said all that, i still miss uMatrix and i personally think that Raymond made a mistake by not incorporating the complete uMatrix grid into uBlock Origin. That disappointment aside, it's nice to see others picking up where Raymond left off and creating some redundancy in the web filtering department in the event he "gets hit by a bus" as 'Wrongthink' stated in his paraMatrix introductory post. The potential pitfall with these filtering extensions is that they're largely dependent upon the Manifest v2 web extension specification which is being phased out by the jackasses at Google, but which Mozilla has promised to continue to support... for now. Given that Mozilla derives a huge amount of income from Google however, and given all of the other retarded shit they've pulled off, i don't put any stock whatsoever into their promises.

In my opinion what is really needed is a fork of uBlock Origin with the uMatrix grid, but i suspect that's a massive undertaking. Failing that, i think it's great to see projects like xiMatrix and paraMatrix, and though i don't see myself using them in the near future, i am certainly not ignoring these projects. I'll be keeping an eye on the development of paraMatrix particularly.

Content update: Alternative Information Directory

The Alternative Information Directory is now being hosted by 'Wrongthink' for which i am greatly appreciative. Please update your bookmarks as the old location will be scrapped in the near future, though the code will remain on Codeberg. If you want to link to the directory, see the Downloads page.

Intent on remaining behind the 8-ball, Mozilla acquires Fakespot

Mozilla has made plenty of stupid decisions in the past, particularly with regard to its Firefox web browser, and it seems it may have made yet another with its acquisition of Fakespot, a company which provides a service that helps people to spot fake product reviews and scams. Yesterday's article on Techcrunch hits exactly upon the reason why i think the deal may have been another Mozilla blunder:

Although AI and machine learning have long been used to detect fake reviews, the task is likely only to get more difficult with the introduction of enhanced and commercially available AI tools. For instance, recent reports indicate that people are using AI chatbots, such as OpenAI's ChatGPT, to write reviews for products on Amazon. These reviews that are reportedly written by ChatGPT could be the next iteration of scam and fake reviews.

The timing of the acquisition is interesting. With the public release of ChatGPT, artificial intelligence is coming on-line in a big way. Over at AMO there are 273 ChatGPT extensions for Mozilla's Firefox as of this writing and the number increases daily. Product reviews are already being fabricated using AI and the trend is sure to continue, probably exponentially, and so Mozilla's new Fakespot toy, which is powered by AI, is going to be competing with itself in a sense. Spam, scams, fake product reviews, misinformation and disinformation is set to explode onto the landscape on a level never before seen and Fakespot, if my prediction is accurate, is going to become irrelevant in very short order.

I happen to be familiar with the MOTO M2 computer audio interface which is a very good, feature rich product relative to its price (around $200). It's one of the few audio interfaces at this price point which uses a high quality DAC that doesn't sacrifice the audio quality of the headphone output to keep the price down like many of its competitors. I hopped over to HuggingChat, an open-source, non-commercially licensed AI chat bot and asked it to provide a few "reviews" for the M2 and this was the result:

Me: provide a negative review of the MOTU M2 audio interface


The MOTU M2 audio interface has received mixed reviews from customers. While many users appreciate its portability, ease of setup, and affordable pricing, others have encountered several issues and frustrations while using this device. Here are a few common negatives associated with the MOTU M2:

  1. Connectivity Issues: Many customers have experienced connectivity problems with the M2 interface, including frequent disconnections from the computer, static noises during recording sessions, and inconsistent audio output levels.
  2. Insufficient Analog Inputs/Outputs: For its size and cost, some users feel that the M2 lacks sufficient analog input/output options. This limitation makes it challenging to accommodate multiple microphones and instruments simultaneously, forcing them to purchase additional adapters or switch to other interfaces altogether.
  3. Compatibility Concerns: Although the M2 supports both Mac and PC platforms, some customers have struggled with driver installations and software updates, leading to system crashes and lost data. Additionally, users running newer operating systems might experience difficulties accessing advanced features due to hardware limitations.
  4. Quality Control Issues: Several customers have reported receiving defective units straight out of the box, necessitating replacements or lengthy repair processes. Others have noticed build quality issues, such as flimsy knobs and buttons, detachable cables that break easily, and ports susceptible to damage from regular handling.
  5. Limited Monitoring Options: Unlike high-end MOTU products, the M2 audio interface does not incorporate a dedicated headphone amplifier. As a result, many musicians find themselves struggling to achieve accurate monitor mixes given the lower maximum volume levels supported by most standard headphones.

Overall, although the MOTU M2 provides excellent value and user convenience, it might fall short of expectations regarding reliability, expandability, and sonic performance for professional studio environments requiring extensive wiring configurations and precise monito

I don't know if there's a some sort of limit regarding replies, but the response ended in mid sentence and it did the same in the next response.

Me: provide a positive review of the MOTU M2 audio interface


Despite its flaws, many satisfied customers consider the MOTU M2 audio interface an excellent choice for both home studios and mobile applications due to its compact design, intuitive controls, and budget-friendly price point. Some pros of the M2 include:

  1. Portable Design: At just under four pounds (9 x 7 x 2 inches), the M2 interface is lightweight, making it easy to transport for live performances or remote recordings. Its sturdy construction ensures adequate protection against accidental knocks or drops.
  2. Ease of Use: Many newbies appreciate the straightforward operation of the M2 without needing comprehensive manuals. The interface boasts simple yet effective control panels, and customization options within DAW software allow for seamless integration with project workflows.
  3. Affordable Pricing: Considering its array of features, the MOTU M2 provides impressive bang for buck. Users typically appreciate the ability to invest in pro-level gear at a fraction of competitors' prices without compromising sound quality or basic functionality.
  4. Versatile Connectivity: The M2 supports both Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows via standard FireWire, offering flexibility for different computer setups. Plus, the inclusion of ADAT Lightpipe digital audio connectivity enables expanded channel counts through compatible external preamps or converter devices.
  5. Onboard Processing Capabilities: The M2 audio interface features two combo mic/line input channels, each with a digitally controlled preamp, line input trim control, and phantom power support for dynamic and condenser mics alike. Dual independent stereo outputs offer dedicated level adjustments and direct-monitor functions for enhanced workflow management.
  6. Low Latency Performance: Thanks to efficient internal processing resources and low CPU utilization, the M2 helps minimize delay and buffer size issues in typical modern computing ecosystems. Users report smooth real-time monitoring experiences even with multi-plugin chains engaged during tracking and mixdown sessi

The responses provided by the AI are not canned replies and so one can keep repeating the exact same query and get different answers each time. For example i repeated the same question i asked the first time and the response was very different:

Me: provide a negative review of the MOTU M2 audio interface


Hi there, I can certainly share my thoughts on the MOTU M2 audio interface. While the device may have some positive features such as its compact design and good sound quality, overall I wouldn't necessarily recommend it based on user reviews and feedback. Some potential downsides include connectivity issues, occasional driver problems, and limited compatibility with certain operating systems. Additionally, while the audio interface has built-in preamps which can be convenient for recording direct inputs without needing additional equipment, they might not match the sonic quality of other dedicated preamp units available on the market. Keep these points in mind when making your decision and consult further reviews from multiple sources to make an informed purchase. Let me know if you have any questions or require further assistance.

Just screwing around, i asked the AI to provide one last "review" of the device:

Me: provide a review of the MOTU M2 audio interface as though it were written by a moron


Hey man, here's what I think about the MOTU M2 audio interface: pretty sweet! It looks cool, sounds awesome, and works great! All my friends are totally jealous cause they don't have one yet. And who cares about all those fancy schmancy specs and tech stuff like THD+N < 0.006% (-97 dBu), EQ and compression on all channels, Burr-Brown converters, or even iOS integration... just plug it in and rock out dude! If you wanna buy yourself something nice, grab one of these bad boys. Yeehaw!

So, yeah, good luck with your new toy Mozilla. I think you'll need it.