Remind me again why we allow browsers to override OS copy commands?
Because the whole Web movement is trying to make browsers into the OS.
Already done; see Chrome OS, WebOS, Firefox OS, probably others.
Pastejacking
131–140 of 246 posts
Re: Pastejacking
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had to implement this kinda code when I worked for Demand Media and it certainly worked. Whats funny is you don't need any fancy new apis to make it work. We were doing some pretty basic tactics actually. Only real way to prevent it is disable javascript.
You should have refused
Moralizing about dawnerd’s employment doesn’t really add to the discussion, IMHO.
Re: Pastejacking
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
Demand Media makes money by monitoring ad networks and then paying people to churn out worthless content that pollutes search results. They watch metrics very carefully.
Sounds like a pretty unethical way to make money.
Sure, if you've got a concept of morality based on primarily being motivated to help others rather than pursuing self interest. If that's the case though then the vast majority of people would fall under the category and make it a pretty meaningless description.
Re: Pastejacking
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like a pretty unethical way to make money.
Kind of odd to even bring ethics up when discussing how websites make money. It doesn't matter at all. Ethics is normally used to discuss other people getting harmed by actions, but when all that harm can be removed simply by closing the browser and doing something else it's barely worth talking about. Is it ethical for a shop to advertise its products in the shop windows when the people running the shop know that th…
Kind of odd to even bring ethics up when discussing how websites make money. It doesn't matter at all.
This is why we can't have nice things. Because people adopt a FYGM attitude. Because they piss in the pool we all have to swim in.
...all that harm can be removed simply by...
...quitting smoking? Throwing away the prescription pain meds? Giving up junk food?
How about not robbing people of their valuable time and money? How about moving past negative-sum business models where the distributed costs far outweigh the concentrated gains?
Re: Pastejacking
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should have refused
Moralizing about dawnerd’s employment doesn’t really add to the discussion, IMHO.
A new discussion of the ethics of software engineering might be valuable. Other professions have codes of ethics; maybe it's time for software, too.
Re: Pastejacking
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like a pretty unethical way to make money.
Sure, if you've got a concept of morality based on primarily being motivated to help others rather than pursuing self interest. If that's the case though then the vast majority of people would fall under the category and make it a pretty meaningless description.
> if you've got a concept of morality based on primarily being motivated to help others
Ethically, self-interest is fine. Failing to help others isn't a huge deal either. It's the part where you're actively and deliberately harming others (by polluting search results - impairing both search engines, as a company, and their users) that we're objecting to.
Re: Pastejacking
#137Thought I would find Mario Heiderich's presentation on the topic.
Here you go :
General approch to the problem of security of copy/paste buffers : https://insomnihackdotme.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/copypes...
Re: Pastejacking
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like a pretty unethical way to make money.
Kind of odd to even bring ethics up when discussing how websites make money. It doesn't matter at all. Ethics is normally used to discuss other people getting harmed by actions, but when all that harm can be removed simply by closing the browser and doing something else it's barely worth talking about. Is it ethical for a shop to advertise its products in the shop windows when the people running the shop know that th…
If I'm actively searching for some information I need, I cannot "simply close the browser and do something else". Search results are polluted with junk and time it takes to find useful information has increased a lot. Finding in-depth information is getting harder and harder because of flood of low quality pages that only hit the keywords and skim the topic on the surface.
Re: Pastejacking
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the whole Web movement is trying to make browsers into the OS.
Already done; see Chrome OS, WebOS, Firefox OS, probably others.
I got you, but those are actual operating systems. Regular browsers should keep being regular browsers, limits respected...
This clipboard thing remembers me of the webrtc functionality that enable browsers to scan my network without asking me.
Re: Pastejacking
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, if you've got a concept of morality based on primarily being motivated to help others rather than pursuing self interest. If that's the case though then the vast majority of people would fall under the category and make it a pretty meaningless description.
> if you've got a concept of morality based on primarily being motivated to help others Ethically, self-interest is fine. Failing to help others isn't a huge deal either. It's the part where you're actively and deliberately harming others (by polluting search results - impairing both search engines, as a company, and their users) that we're objecting to.
I think the idea of "polluting search results" requires too much of a subjective concept of what good content is to say whether producing one kind or not is unethical. They aren't producing what they are because people aren't looking at it and I'm very sceptical of any notion that people don't generally do what they want. It has a very centrally planned feel to say "people want think pieces" or "people want to read about X" when reality shows that people want easily consumed clickbait and listicles.