| ▲ | ACCount37 3 days ago |
| If you ever wondered why the likes of Google and Cloudflare want to restrict the web to a few signed, integrity-checked browser implementations? Now you know. |
|
| ▲ | jasode 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| >If you ever wondered why the likes of Google and Cloudflare want to restrict the web I disagree with the framing of "us vs them". It's actually "us vs us". It's not just us plebians vs FAANG giants. The small-time independent publishers and creators also want to restrict the web because they don't want their content "stolen". They want to interact with real humans instead of bots. The following are manifestations of the same fear: - small-time websites adding Anubis proof-of-work - owners of popular Discord channels turning on the setting for phone # verification as a requirement for joining - web blogs wanting to put a "toll gate" (maybe utilize Cloudflare or other service) to somehow make OpenAI and others pay for the content We're long past the days of colleagues and peers of ARPANET and NFSNET sharing info for free on university computers. Now everybody on the globe wants to try to make a dollar, and likewise, they feel dollars are being stolen from them. |
| |
| ▲ | btown 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | But this, too, skips over some nuance. There are a few types of actors here: - small content creators who want to make their content accessible to individuals - companies that want to gobble up public data and resell it in a way that destroys revenue streams for content creators - gatekeepers like Cloudflare who want to ostensibly stop this but will also become rent-extractors in the process - users who should have the right to use personal tools like yt-dlp to customize their viewing experience, and do not wish to profit at the expense of the creators We should be cautious both that the gatekeepers stand to profit from their gatekeeping, and that their work inhibits users as well. If creators feel this type of user (often a dedicated fan and would-be promoter) is a necessary sacrifice to defend against predatory data extractors… then that’s absolutely the creator’s choice, but you can’t say there’s a unified “us” here. | | |
| ▲ | TeMPOraL 3 days ago | parent [-] | | But then it's not (small creators + users) vs. the other parties you listed. Small creators, like small business, often exhibit the worst kinds of greed and exploitative behavior. Also there's a lot of misalignment between users and providers at the cultural level - the society is yet to fully process the implications of "digital revolution" (and copyright industry meddling with everything isn't helping). A big chunk of that boils down to the same thing that started "the war on general-purpose computing": producers have opinions on how their products should be used, and want to force consumers to only use them as prescribed. Whether it's because they want to exploit the consumers through a side channel (e.g. ads), or to "protect intellectual property", or because they see artistic value in the integrity of their creation, or because they think they know better than customers - reasons are many, but underneath them all, is the core idea the society hasn't yet worked out: whether, and to what degree, are producers even morally entitled to that kind of control. My personal answer is: they're not (nor they are to their old business models). But then it's producers, not consumers, who have all the money and control here. |
| |
| ▲ | skydhash 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > small-time websites adding Anubis proof-of-work Those were already public. The issue is AI bot ddos-ing the server. Not everyone has infinite bandwith. > owners of popular Discord channels turning on the setting for phone # verification as a requirement for joining I still think that Discord is a weird channel for community stuff. There's a lot of different format for communication, but people are defaulting to chat. > web blogs wanting to put a "toll gate" (maybe utilize Cloudflare or other service) to somehow make OpenAI and others pay for the content Paid contents are good (Coursera, O'Reilly, Udemy,...). But a lot of these services wants to have free powered by ads (for audience?). --- The fact is, we have two main bad actors: AI companies hammering servers and companies that want to centralize content (that they do not create) by adding gatekeeping extension to standard protocols. | |
| ▲ | bayindirh 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Now everybody on the globe wants to try to make a dollar, and likewise, they feel dollars are being stolen from them. I'm not in it for the dollar. I just want the licenses I put on my content/code to be respected, that's all. IOW, I don't what I put out there to be free forever (as in speech and beer) to be twisted and monetized by the people who re in this for the dollar. | |
| ▲ | pryelluw 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don’t feel like dollars are stolen from me. It’s more of companies abusing my goodwill to publish information online. From higher bills as a result of aggressive crawling, to copying my work and removing all copyright/licensing from the code. Sure, fair use and all, but when they return the same exact code it just makes me wonder. Nowadays, producing anything feels like being the cows udder. | |
| ▲ | jrochkind1 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | i want my content borrowed/shared, and I still need to be engaged in this stuff because the poorly behaved distributed bots that have arisen in the past year are trying to take boundless resources from my site(s), that I cannot afford. | |
| ▲ | jrm4 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Then some of those small people are wrong too. I wish we could all just stop fighting the truth of the tech -- it costs ZERO to make copies of things, and adjust accordingly. Patreon (and keep it real, OnlyFans) are roughly the only viable long term models. | |
| ▲ | einpoklum 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The small-time independent publishers and creators also want to restrict the web because they don't want their content "stolen". I'm sure some music creators may have, years ago, been against CD recorders, or platforms like Napster or even IRC-based file transfer for sharing music. Hell, maybe they were even against VCRs back in the day. But they were misguided at best. People who want to prevent computer users from freely copying data are, in this context at least, part of "them" rather than "us". | |
| ▲ | bitwize 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Duh. I've known this for decades. The biggest advocates for DRM I've known are small-time content creators: authors, video producers, musicians. They've been saying the same thing since the 90s: without things like DRM, their stuff would be pirated, and they'd like to earn a living doing what they love instead of grinding at a day job to support themselves while everybody benefits from their creative output. In addition, major publishers and record labels won't touch stuff that's been online because of the piracy risk. They don't want to make an investment in smaller creators without a return in the form of sales of copies. That last bit is less true of music now than it used to be because of streaming and stuff, but the principle still applies. This is why the DMCA will never be repealed, DRM will never go away, and there is no future for general purpose computing. People want access digital content, but the creators of that content wouldn't release it at all if they knew that it could be copied endlessly by whomever receives it. | | |
| ▲ | goku12 3 days ago | parent [-] | | That isn't entirely true. Perhaps it's because small content creators aren't a monolithic group. There are a few who try the alternative approaches and succeed. For example, whenever buying ebooks, I first check if the author sells it directly or through small publishers. It's always a better deal if they do. Cheaper than what you pay on amzn, DRM-free and occasionally lifetime free updates (eg: The Kubernetes book by Nigel Poulton). Despite the lower price, the author gets most, if not all of what you pay. They're sometimes liberal with the sharing policy too. They ask you to not share it around in large numbers, while conceding that just a copy or two is expected. I find this to be a reasonable demand. Therefore I encourage people to buy a copy for themselves if they like the book. I have heard someone trying this approach with music albums and succeeding at it. The album is more likely to go viral due to the easiness in sharing, while you'll always find consumers who volunteer to pay you. While the returns per copy is low, the large number of copies means that your profits may be higher than if it were DRM-encumbered. Musicians may also like the fact that there are no powerful middlemen that they have to contend with. In fact, this is what YouTube creators already do when they choose alternative monetization paths like Patreon. What's really needed is for people to support and encourage this model and such creators. We used to earlier blame them saying that people choose convenience and short term savings over long term market health. But that's no longer applicable. People are so fed up with being exploited under consumerism that they've started boycotting these big players to regain their independence and self sufficiency. The real issue preventing open digital markets is just the lack of awareness of their existence. This message has to be spread somehow. | | |
| |
| ▲ | krageon 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's us vs them. What big corps want is fundamentally adversarial due to it's motivation. I like to think that humans can conceptually not be your enemy. | |
| ▲ | mschuster91 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The small-time independent publishers and creators also want to restrict the web because they don't want their content "stolen" ... or just keep their site on the Internet. There hasn't been any major progress on sanctioning bad actors - be it people running vulnerable IoT crap that ends up being taken over by a botnet, cybercriminals and bulletproof hosters, or nation state actors. As long as you don't attack targets from your own geopolitical class (i.e. Russians don't attack Russians, a lot of malware will just quit if it spots Russian locale), you can do whatever the fuck you want. And that is how we end up with darknet services where you can trivially order a DDoS taking down a website you don't like or, if you manage to get your opponent's IP leaked during an online game, their residential IP address. Pay with whatever shitcoin you have, and no one is any wiser who the perpetrator is. | |
| ▲ | mrguyorama 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >The small-time independent publishers and creators also want to restrict the web Oh really? Does Linus's Floatplane go to this extent to prevent users from downloading stuff? Does Nebula? Does whatever that gun youtuber's version of video site do this? Does Patreon? | |
| ▲ | johnebgd 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It’s like we are living in an affordability crisis and people are tired of 400 wealthy billionaires profiting from peoples largess in the form of free data/tooling. | |
| ▲ | greenavocado 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | When Nixon slammed the gold window shut so Congress could keep writing blank checks for Vietnam and the Great Society, it wasn't just some monetary technicality. It was the moment America broke its word to the world and broke something fundamental in us too. Suddenly money wasn't something you earned through sweat or innovation anymore. It became something politicians and bankers could conjure from thin air whenever they wanted another war, another corporate bailout, another vote-buying scheme. Fast forward fifty years and smell the rot. That same fiscal recklessness Congress spending like drunken sailors while pretending deficits don't matter has bled into every pore of society. Why wouldn't it? When BlackRock scoops up entire neighborhoods with Fed-printed cash while your kid can't afford a studio apartment, people notice. When Tyson jacks up chicken prices to record profits while diners can't afford bacon, people feel it. And when some indie blogger slaps a paywall on their life's work because OpenAI vacuumed their words to train ChatGPT? That's the same disease wearing digital clothes. We're all living in Nixon's hangover. The "us vs us" chaos you see Discord servers demanding your phone number, small sites gatekeeping against bots, everyone scrambling to monetize scraps that's what happens when trust evaporates. Just like the dollar became Monopoly money after '71, everything feels devalued now. Your labor? Worth less each year. Your creativity? Someone's AI training fuel. Your neighborhood? A BlackRock asset on a spreadsheet. And Washington's still at it! Printing trillions to "save the economy" while inflation eats your paycheck alive. Passing trillion-dollar "infrastructure bills" that somehow leave bridges crumbling but defense contractors swimming in cash. It's the same old shell game: socialize the losses, privatize the gains. The factory worker paying $8 for eggs understands this. The nurse getting lectured about "wage spirals" while hospital CEOs pocket millions understands this. The teenager locking down their Discord because bots keep spamming scams? They understand this. Weimar happened when money became meaningless. 1971 happened when promises became meaningless. What you're seeing now the suspicion, the barriers, the every-man-for-himself hustle is what bubbles up when people realize the whole system's running on fumes. The diner owner charging $18 for a burger isn't greedy. The blogger blocking AI scrapers isn't a Luddite. They're just building levees against a flood Washington started with a printing press half a century ago. The tragedy is that we're all knee-deep in the same muddy water, throwing sandbags at each other while the real architects of this mess the political grifters, the Fed bankers, the extraction-engine capitalists watch dry-eyed from their high ground. Until we stop accepting their counterfeit money and their counterfeit promises, we'll keep drowning in this rigged game. The gold window didn't just close in '71. The whole damn social contract rusted shut. | | |
| ▲ | habinero 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Sir, this is a Wendy's. The gold standard is objectively terrible economic policy and "society was better when I was young" has been a meme for thousands of years. It feels nice to attribute everything bad to this one weird trick, but it's fake. | |
| ▲ | zahlman 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What does any of this have to do with yt-dlp? | | |
| ▲ | dotancohen 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Ostensibly the same forces that drove Nixon to move the dollar off of gold, are driving Google to destroy third party YouTube clients. |
| |
| ▲ | chrisweekly 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Wow. That was eloquent, and coherent, and depressing. I'd be grateful for someone to counter with something less dismal. Good things are still happening in the world. A positive future remains possible -- but we have to be able to imagine it to bring it into being. | | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Semi coherent. The greed and corruption is a real theme but would still be 100% possible while on the gold standard. | | |
| ▲ | immibis 2 days ago | parent [-] | | They'd have to physically steal gold from people, and people would notice that. Or they could mine more gold, but that's hard. Or they could publicly and officially change the exchange rate (of dollars to gold), and people would notice that politicians make it go down, the same way that people notice when politicians make taxes go up (they notice way more than when prices other than taxes go up). With the current system, they (the central bank) can just increase some people's numbers in some spreadsheets, and the effects are extremely indirect. Nominally this is in exchange for assets of equal value so the situation returns the normal after some time, but that hasn't been happening - the amount of money created this way has not been decreasing at any meaningful rate. | | |
| ▲ | habinero 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Considering the amount of panics and depressions and general economic insanity that happened on the gold standard in the 1800, none of this is true. | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Just selling bonds would have raised more than enough money to give out corruptly. And corporate bailouts are downright cheap compared to the federal budget. | | |
| ▲ | immibis 2 days ago | parent [-] | | And it would be impossible to bail out those bonds when they defaulted, nor to reuse the bonds to back money. | | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > And it would be impossible to bail out those bonds when they defaulted Well the US hasn't defaulted so changing how a default works wouldn't really affect the trajectory we took. And a default would be pretty catastrophic either way. > nor to reuse the bonds to back money. I don't know what you mean here. | | |
| ▲ | immibis 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well the US isn't on the gold standard. If it was on the gold standard then it would have defaulted. That's why it moved off the gold standard. Actually, by moving off the gold standard, it defaulted on dollars (at the time a kind of gold bond) rather than defaulting on dollar-denominated government bonds. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | sillyfluke 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Well on the bright side blood avocados are still green. Which the poster also seems to appreciate. | | |
| ▲ | greenavocado 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Lately I've had to resort to buying avocados from Costco in those little plastic cups because whole avocados in many supermarkets in my region have started to spoil too quickly. Sad. |
| |
| ▲ | attila-lendvai 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | until people learn money, the concept, nothing will change. and that in turn will hardly happen while the bad guys own childhood (compulsory schooling). |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | mtrovo 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I don't know, it's really hard to blame them. In a way, the next couple of years are going to be a battle to balance easy access to info with compensation for content creators. The web as we knew it before ChatGPT was built around the idea that humans have to scavenge for information, and while they're doing that, you can show them ads. In that world, content didn't need to be too protected because you were making up for it in eyeballs anyway. With AI, that model is breaking down. We're seeing a shift towards bot traffic rather than human traffic, and information can be accessed far more effectively and, most importantly, without ad impressions. So, it makes total sense for them to be more protective about who has access to their content and to make sure people are actually paying for it, be it with ad views or some other form of agreement. |
| |
| ▲ | SV_BubbleTime 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Don’t worry! Ads are coming to AI. The big AI push next will be context, your context all the time. Your phone will “help” and get all your data to OpenAI… “It looks like you went for a run today? Good job, you deserve a treat! Studies show a little ice cream after a long run is effectively free calories! It just so happens the nearest Dairy Queen is running a promotion just for the next 30 minutes. I’m getting you directions now.” | | |
| ▲ | codedokode 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It would not be that much of a problem if ads promoted healthy and tasty food but they will probably promote an ice-cream made from a powder and chemicals emulating taste of berries rather than from milk and fresh-picked berries. | | |
| ▲ | therein 3 days ago | parent [-] | | It still would be. Loss of agency. Ads are text and images you see. Native advertising in a chatbot conversation is a third party bidding their way into your conversation. Machine showing you an ad versus injecting intention into your context are very different things. |
| |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | bitwize 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is why contra Louis Rossman, Clippy was not a good thing for humanity. | |
| ▲ | nebula8804 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If open source AI becomes good enough would this model hold? I guess they will try to shut down the open models as they come close? | |
| ▲ | Noumenon72 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | "I'm calling the user analysis tool... it seems this user is health conscious. I'll suggest a trail app for their next run instead of ice cream." |
| |
| ▲ | chrisweekly 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think your point is valid, but FTR the "shift" happened long before ChatGPT; bot traffic has exceeded that of humans for over a decade. |
|
|
| ▲ | th0ma5 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Weird people talking about small time creators wanting DRM I've never seen that... Usually they'd be hounding for any attention? I don't know why multiple accounts are seemingly independently bringing this up, but maybe it is trying to muddy the waters? This concept? |
|
| ▲ | supriyo-biswas 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| At least for YouTube, viewbotting is very much a thing, which undermines trust in the platform. Even if we were to remove Google ads from the equation, there’s nothing preventing someone from crafting a channel with millions of bot-generated views and comments, in order to paid sponsor placements, etc. The reasons are similar for Cloudflare, but their stances are a bit too DRMish for my tastes. I guess someone could draw the lines differently. |
| |
| ▲ | ACCount37 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | If any of this was done to combat viewbotting, then any disruption to token calculation would prevent views from being registered - not videos from being downloaded. | | |
| ▲ | supriyo-biswas 3 days ago | parent [-] | | From my perspective both problems are effectively the same. I want to count unique users by checking for asset downloads and correlating unique session IDs. People can request the static assets directly, leading to view booting and waste of egress bandwidth. The solution: have clients prove they are a legitimate client by running some computationally intensive JS that interacts with DOM APIs, etc. (which is not in any way unique to big tech, see Anubis/CreepJS etc.) The impact on the hobbyist use case is, to them, just collateral damage. | | |
| ▲ | ACCount37 3 days ago | parent [-] | | No, the difference is: if I'm fighting viewbots, I want zero cues to be emitted to the client. The client should NEVER know whether its view is being counted or not, or why. Having no reliable feedback makes it so much harder for a viewbotter to find a workaround. If there's a visible block on video downloads? They're not fighting viewbots with that. | | |
| ▲ | supriyo-biswas 3 days ago | parent [-] | | For general spam deterrence I agree, but how do you prevent paying for the bandwidth in this case? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | wzdd 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Youtube has already accounted for this by using a separate endpoint to count watch stats. See the recent articles about view counts being down attributed to people using adblockers. Even if they hadn't done that, you can craft millions of bot-sponsored views using a legitimate browser and some automation and the current update doesn't change that. So I'd say Occam's razor applies and Youtube simply wants to be in control of how people view their videos so they can serve ads, show additional content nearby to keep them on the platform longer, track what parts of the video are most watched, and so on. | |
| ▲ | rwmj 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm sure that's a problem for Youtube. What does it have to do with me rendering Youtube videos on my own computer in the way I want? | | |
| ▲ | pwg 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > What does it have to do with me rendering Youtube videos on my own computer in the way I want? It doesn't. That interferes with google's ad revenue stream, which is why YT continues to try to make it harder and harder to do so. | |
| ▲ | bitwize 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You don't have that right. When you view copyrighted content, you do so at the pleasure of the licensor. | | |
| ▲ | rwmj 3 days ago | parent [-] | | How you watch copyrighted content has never been something that copyright has controlled. | | |
| ▲ | bitwize 2 days ago | parent [-] | | If the content needs to be copied or downloaded in order to be watched, you may do so exclusively under terms set by the licensor, period. You may not even get fair use rights, as to get the content in the first place you might have to agree to terms of service waiving them, and being found to use the content in an unapproved way would be grounds for cutting off your access. | | |
| ▲ | rwmj 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | So in other words, copyright doesn't cover it, thanks for confirming that. The click through contracts you describe have no legal force where I live. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | imiric 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Like another comment mentioned: that's a problem for YouTube to solve. They pay a lot of money to many smart people who can implement sophisticated bot detection systems, without impacting most legitimate human users. But when their business model depends on extracting value from their users' data, tracking their behavior and profiling them across their services so that they can better serve them ads, it goes against their bottom line for anyone to access their service via any other interface than their official ones. This is what these changes are primarily about. Preventing abuse is just a side benefit they can use as an excuse. | |
| ▲ | sporkxrocket 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As a viewer, this is not even remotely my problem. | |
| ▲ | ForHackernews 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > which undermines trust in the platform What? What does this even mean? Who "trusts" youtube? It's filled with disinformation, AI slop and nonsense. | | |
| ▲ | supriyo-biswas 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I provided an example is given right after that sentence. Trustworthiness of the content is an entirely separate thing. | |
| ▲ | attila-lendvai 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | you forgot the excessive censorship, of course to "fight disinformation"... it even became an interesting signal which "disinformation" they deem censorship-worthy. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | eek2121 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The fact you shoved Cloudflare in there shows your ignorance of the actual problems and solutions offered. |
|
| ▲ | codedokode 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There could be valid reasons for fighting downloaders, for example: - AI companies scraping YT without paying YT let alone creators for training data. Imagine how many data YT has. - YT competitors in other countries scraping YT to copy videos, especially in countries where YT is blocked. Some such companies have a function "move all my videos from YT" to promote bloggers migration. |
| |
| ▲ | transcriptase 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >AI companies Like Google? >scraping YT without paying YT let alone creators for training data Like Google has been doing to the entire internet, including people’s movement, conversations, and habits… for decades? | | |
| ▲ | codedokode 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Like Google? Like Google competitors obviously. > Like Google has been doing to the entire internet, including people’s movement, conversations, and habits… for decades? Yes, but if you allowed to index your site (companies even spent money to make site better indexable), Google used to bring customers and AI companies bring back nothing. They are just freeloaders. |
| |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | - Enforce views of ads (not debating the validity of this reason, but this is the entire reason Youtube exists, to sell and push ads) | |
| ▲ | baxuz 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Then they should allow a download API for paying customers. | | |
| ▲ | balder1991 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | But even if you’re a paying customer, the creator is only paid if you watch it on the platform. | |
| ▲ | codedokode 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Music labels publish the music on YT in exchange for ad revenue, they won't be happy if someone would download their music for free, and making music is expensive, google how much just a single drum mic costs and you need lot of them. | | |
| ▲ | baxuz 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > for paying customers | | |
| ▲ | codedokode 3 days ago | parent [-] | | YT shares income from subscriptions with music labels? I didn't hear about this, and even if they shared the download must be paid much higher than a view because after downloading a person could potentially listen for a track hundred times in a row. | | |
| ▲ | diet_mtn_dew 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Youtube premium includes Youtube Music, which is alphabet's streaming service, and I assume that they are paying the same fees as everyone else. | | |
| ▲ | codedokode 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > as everyone else "Everyone else" do not allow to download music in an unencrypted format, so it makes sense if YT doesn't allow also. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dylan604 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's not YT's content though. |
| |
| ▲ | Chris2048 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Who says these are valid? | |
| ▲ | supriyo-biswas 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why is this being downvoted? Are people really gonna shoot the messenger and fail to why a company may be willing to protect their competitive position? |
|
|
| ▲ | gjsman-1000 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Everything trends towards centralization on a long enough period. I laugh at people who think ActivityPub or Mastodon or BlueSky will save us. We already had that, it was called e-mail, look what happened once everyone started using it. If we couldn't stop the centralization effects that occurred on e-mail, any attempt to stop centralization in general is honestly a utopian fool's errand. Regulation is easier. |
| |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I am a big supporter of AT Protocol, and I contribute some money to a fund to build on it. Why laugh at running experiments? Nothing will "save us," it is a constant effort as long as humans desire to use these systems to connect. Email exists today, and is very usable still as a platform that cannot be captured. The consolidation occurred because people do not want to run their own servers, so we should build for that! Bluesky and AT Protocol are experiments in building something different, with different use cases and capabilities, that also cannot be captured. Just like email. You can run your own PDS. You can run your own stack from PDS to users "end to end" if you so choose. You can pay to do both of these tasks. No one can buy this or take it away from you, if it is built on protocols instead of a platform someone can own and control. Regulation would be great. The EU does it well. It is lacking in the US, and will be for some time. And so we have to downgrade to technical mitigations against centralization until regulation can meet the burden. | | | |
| ▲ | numpad0 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | e-mail can't handle 24/7 1k posts/sec traffic which Twitter was about. A more appropriate analogue is IRC. |
|
