nintendiator @ nintendiator @feddit.cl

Posts

5

Comments

452

Joined

2 yr. ago

Because HTTP and HTML are already stretched out to be broken resulting in the internet you know. Gemini protocol, on the other hand, starts from scratch with the idea to be limited by design on what it can possibly do, so as to remove the most common commercial enshittification cases as early as possible.

Android, but the real one (AOSP, etc) that you can get with custom ROMs, not Google® Android©.

lol, just become the government pay the EU.

True, what we truly need and have the force to get behind with is an Alternate Internet, an Alternet of sorts. Something like Gopher, or Gemini.

Excuse me but would you happen to have the link to the 100% real ONE LINK no-fake MegaUpload version?

I really can’t see them going along with this.

A few words from the Mozilla CEO with their new pay raise from Google should fix that...

Isn't the answer, like, "always", anyway?

Oh, a metaprogram?

ifs printing ifs...

Qué tienen de buenos fríos

Buen bot.

Even if I agree that a locked down web is the most likely outcome, it’s just not a fact until someone working on that proposal outright says it was their intent, or it actually happens.

At which point it will be too late to decry it as such. You'll already be locked out (or in).

Honestly, it seems we just naturally can't see at the same eye leve, yeahl. You seem to be looking for dangers "down", on newspaper reports on stuff already gone; I'm looking for dangers "up", to the clouds in the sky and what meteorologists have to say about them.

Well, and here I was thinking that the next Wikileaks news package / Snowden Style hero would actually need to make some effort...

The US never ceases to amaze me how retrograde it can be as a country.

Moderation like you are proposing in no way requires someone to "own a tag".

Anyone can use #CocaCola. Coca Cola Company does not get to dictate, audit or execute how people use the tag, nor should anyone else.

It's not about you, it's about your attitude towards the problem.

I read the entire document and several replies form beginning to end. I've also lived through several internet enshittifications. The point of the article is that while sure, that's what it says on print, we've gotta learn to read between the lines, in particular when it comes to big corps like Google. They "say" on non-commital writing it doesn't aim to be DRM, sure; that's just soft doublespeak to try and appease the first wave of peer review. This was even called out on mastodon by one of the contributors to #28 where they even quoted the dogwhistle-style wording.

Frankly? We already know how to auto-translate this corpo speak, we've had decades of this (and a fair amount of from Google itself, too). They say this, they say that, as they have countless times before. "We are inventing some Doomsday parts here. Might be useful in case someone wants to do Doomsday Stuff that we have done before on the weekly but don't officially approve of on record. Like, say, build the Doomsaday Device from the book 'Don't Invent the Doomsday Device'." If you say this does not intend to lock the web, you are lying to yourself and to others. Whether by evil intent or by negligence, I leave that one up to you.

Dunno the exacts, but why not the good ol' GPG? You only need to be able to exchange keys out-of-band once, and it saves you from lots of other issues. Trust between Alice and Brian is a between-them thing, and should not depend on a thrid party like Caroline arbitrarily deciding to change Brian's legal name to Brandon.

They seem to suggest doing it that way because the URL of a user profile is going to be guaranteed to be unique, and can only be owned by the owner of the domain.

Immediate design issue right there: the URL of a user profile is not guaranteed to be unique, and while it can """only""" be owned by the owner of the domain, 1.- it's not owned by the user of the profile and 2.- the ownership by the domain owner is revocable by a third party.

Design-wise, it feels to me like they decided that land / house deeds could be certified by municipal traffic signage.

The W3C, also known as the people who develop the web standards

Figures. The same people who added DRM to the web standards.

Now, I don't know what other alternatives could have been used, but I know that URL was among the obvious ones to not use. Something that uniquely identifies you has to be non-transitive and non-revocable by a third party, of which URLs are neither (domain names are revocable, URLs don't have addressing persistence let alone when you add query strings into the mix, etc). Among the few things that I can think are non-transitive and non-thirdparty-revocable are the good ol' ssh-keygen keys, easy to generate and all that but I've never found a good mechanism or design to query about them.

, laying out the details of the proposal and its long-term consequences in an objective and informative way.

"Google wants to introduce DRM to the web".

With the years of experience that we have with the disasters caused by all of "Google", "wants", "DRM" and "web", how is this not objective and informative enough for a title?

Does it aim to destroy extensions and adblockers? No. Straight from the page itself:

Are you intentionally trying to be dense?

Yes. Firefox s the broweser. Mozilla Corporation is the golden parachute for its CEO.