This is much much more than just ad blocking. The mechanism is so generic that it can be used to lock out users for whatever reason. If the "attester" doesn't provide the requested proof then you're just shit outa luck. We should not hand such a power to anyone, let alone big for-profit companies.
Yea I think this would be the best outcome for the Fediverse. You just can't expect everyone to create and manage their own instance. We are building a social system here, so trusting other people has to be part of it, as opposed to crypto for example. We just have to make sure we trust the right people for the right reasons, and no one instance gets too big.
Yea, but that's just a lowest common denominator (e.g. it doesn't include things like lemmy community sidebars), and also generally not appropriate for a client application. ActivityPub transmitts all events that are happening (posts, likes ...) between servers, and they are supposed to index and aggregate things (e.g. sum up votes, sort posts). It's just not feasible to expect the same from a mobile app for example, you'd have to at least create another standard for that.
So services end up implementing their own client APIs to fit their needs. And imo that's actually a good thing, because it allows them to try out features and specialize on different use cases. But afaik the ActivityPub people are working on another standard for client APIs, at least it's on their radar.
I think one difference is that the rate of change in chat apps has slowed down dramatically. When was the last time one of the major apps added a new feature you can't live without anymore? So it might be easier now to keep up.
The devs responsible for this say their goal is to detect bots, but make sure it doesn't harm people not using this tech. I'm actually inclined to be believe them. The problem is that those guardrails could turn out to be ineffective, or Google could decide to just disable them at some point.
This is one of the reasons to use FF. I know it can be a bit inconvenient, but these sites don't care about optimizing for anything but Chrome because it has such a huge market share.
And you can keep a second browser installed for the few times this happens, e.g. Chromium or Brave. Also an addon to change your user-agent string for a website works 90% of the time.
And that's pretty much what this article is about: Social media could do with some real improvements, but all the big companies come up with are new money-making schemes.
The Fediverse is a real improvement for example. Idk if you heard of this app called "Lemmy", but it's kinda nice.
Why are you creating narrow strawman arguments from what I'm saying? Being fun is one upside of new things in tech, and for everyone who enjoys that sort of thing.
Trying new things is also the major way to create progress and improve lives over time. Everything you are used to right now was new at some point, and we wouldn't have any of it if people were just content with what they had. And I think we can all agree that social media needs some real improvements right now.
That's what I thought as well. If the authors of this "study" were able to simply scan for it on the Fediverse, then what's stopping law enforcement units from doing the same? They can literally get a message everytime someone posts something on a suspicious instance.
I mean, I'm talking about switching IF there are apps for your workflow on Linux. If not then of course this is not (yet?) an option for you. But that's exactly why I say switch app by app, so you can figure out if your workflow would actually work. Afaik many people don't switch because the apps they are used to don't exist on Linux, not because there are no replacements. And as a side effect, most Linux apps are open source, so even switching to just some of those is still a good thing.
Same. But I also worked as a dev for an online advertising company, and conversions are everything to them! If this causes 5% more users to not close the tab because of a captcha check, then every last one of them will want to have this.
Although if there was an alternative and easier way to prove that I'm human on the internet, without harming my privacy or allowing someone to arbitrarily block legitimate users (like this proposal), then I would be all for it. The problem here is that the checking standards and process would be in the hands of a few companies, so they could check for much more than just that.
Of course because that's where a lot of the fun is in tech, inventing, learning about, using and talking about new stuff. Newness can make mundane things interesting and entertaining for a while, just look at a child figuring out new things for the first time.
Props for even actively thinking about it, that's always the first step! If you want to switch to Linux I recommend first switching to apps that run on both Linux and Windows. They exist for almost every use case, and you can migrate gradually app by app.
I think your and their definition of "trusted" is a bit different. They mean trusted as in "very likely a real human". That's not enough to allow any privileged access, but it should help when trying to block bots heuristically while preserving a good experience for real users. "Trusted" devices could skip capture checks for example.
Of course this doesn't make this proposal any better, it's still extremely dangerous and misguided imo!
Please chill. Just because there was a really bad proposal doesn't mean everything coming out of browser companies is evil, especially Mozilla of all people. Specifially read this part on the page you linked:
If you are aware of the associated risk and still wish to allow add-ons disallowed on a site by Mozilla, you can do so from the Configuration Editor (about:config page)
So this just disables some extensions by default, but you can still enable them if you wish. That sounds very reasonable to me!
shrugal @ shrugal @lemm.ee Posts 2Comments 525Joined 2 yr. ago
Afaik Debrid-Link is very similar, but also seeds like a regular seed box.