Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google vs. the Open Web

interpeer.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 207 posts

Re: Google vs. the Open Web

#131

Post by EGreg »

dschuetz wrote: post #84
EGreg wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have been doing it! Join us! It isn’t perfect but we are ahead of most others (Mastodon, Matrix). We have spent TWELVE YEARS building the free, permissionless open source platform for anyone to assemble and host their own community software with all the features of Facebook/Twitter/TikTok for their own community: https://github.com/Qbix/Platform We are about to roll out version 2.0 — I have never done this before…

> It isn’t perfect but we are ahead of most others (Mastodon, Matrix). We have spent TWELVE YEARS building the free, permissionless open source platform for anyone to assemble and host their own community software with all the features of Facebook/Twitter/TikTok for their own community Why are you using Github then?

Why are we using Hacker News? Go post on https://community.qbix.com/ that is powered by Discourse, a fellow open source company doing good work, and that we are integrated with

Why using calendly, zoom, and google? Well, as I said, we haven't launched Qbix Platform 2.0 to everyone worldwide yet. This is if you want to get involved pre-launch.

We dogfood our own stuff, but we also interoperate with everything else out there, such as Discourse (https://qbix.com/ecosystem for example incorporates it), Zoom, Google, Facebook, etc.

Re: Google vs. the Open Web

#132

Post by EGreg »

Dah00n wrote: post #73
EGreg wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have been doing it! Join us! It isn’t perfect but we are ahead of most others (Mastodon, Matrix). We have spent TWELVE YEARS building the free, permissionless open source platform for anyone to assemble and host their own community software with all the features of Facebook/Twitter/TikTok for their own community: https://github.com/Qbix/Platform We are about to roll out version 2.0 — I have never done this before…

Interesting, if it isn't US based and if it isn't using US politics as a guideline (like banning russian patches). I have lost a big part of my former trust and want for writing OSS this last few months and one thing I have learned is that if those two can't be answered with a resounding no it is a project I won't ever contemplate even though I'm neither American nor Russian.

Unless banning Russian patches is somehow required by US law, why would we ban Russian patches?

https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/5/22215588/github-iran-sanct...

As a side note, many people on our development team that has worked with us since 2013 have spoken Russian, coming from Ukraine, Armenia, Russia, etc. Many of them continue to work together despite the war their governments are conducting.

We are for empowering people uniting communities around the world, and are pretty critical of government overreach:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35656705

https://community.qbix.com/t/transparency-in-government/234

https://qbix.com/blog/2021/01/15/open-source-communities/

If that appeals to you, the lowest hanging fruit is just joining the community and introducing yourself:

https://community.qbix.com/

Re: Google vs. the Open Web

#133

Post by EGreg »

mikecoles wrote: post #76
EGreg wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have been doing it! Join us! It isn’t perfect but we are ahead of most others (Mastodon, Matrix). We have spent TWELVE YEARS building the free, permissionless open source platform for anyone to assemble and host their own community software with all the features of Facebook/Twitter/TikTok for their own community: https://github.com/Qbix/Platform We are about to roll out version 2.0 — I have never done this before…

I think the github link is an Andrew Yang campaign site.

The link above is an introduction to the Qbix Platform, which you can download and try out, if you want to rather easily build your own community, that has more advanced features than Mastodon or Matrix.

Re: Google vs. the Open Web

#134

Post by CrzyLngPwd »

AlexandrB wrote: post #103
CrzyLngPwd wrote: post #33

Why don't we just skip to the part where google runs and owns everything and everyone, and we all have to give them 50% of our harvests.

I wonder what Google's version of "prima nocta" will look like.

Not limited to females, obvs :-p

Re: Google vs. the Open Web

#135

Post by theK »

nobody9999 wrote: post #89
theK wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh right! I said crypto on hacker news! what was I thinking?! :-D

>Oh right! I said crypto on hacker news! what was I thinking?! :-D Post that comment again when crypto accounts are FDIC[0] (or whatever scheme, if any, is used where you live) insured. I'm sure you'll get a different response. [0] https://www.fdic.gov/

You only need FDIC in systems where you don't own the coins. Cryptocurrencies actually obviate a lot of added fat like this ;-)

Re: Google vs. the Open Web

#136

Post by dottedmag »

supriyo-biswas wrote: post #18

I mentioned this in the other WEI thread and I’ll do it here again: Instead of simply flailing our collective arms around complaining about an evil corporation, has anyone written to the respective competition authorities (such as the FTC in the US or CCI in India) about the potential anticompetitive effects of this proposal?

Has anyone sent such a message to their authority? Please share, as more authorities (Norwegian anti-competition authority will surely want to hear about taht) need to be contacted with well-researched text.

Re: Google vs. the Open Web

#137

Post by tantaman »

lrem wrote: post #37

> In general, bots are pretty easy to exclude. They usually advertise themselves by a user agent string. Yes, that can be faked – but it seems highly unlikely that bots using faked user agents create such a large number of impressions that Google has to use this route against them. Is this serious?

Someone needs to tell the tens of thousands of employees working in the abuse protection space about the user agent string!

Re: Google vs. the Open Web

#138

Post by llm_nerd »

saurik wrote: post #106
llm_nerd wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You can bet that the Google crawler will have its own "attestation token" but if you want to crawl the Web with your own code you'll be SOL." Let's be real here and note that while most web properties welcome Google crawlers, there are many, many other scrapers/crawlers that offer zero value to web operators while costing resources.

Ok... but the result of fixing that by whitelisting only Google is a de facto full-on monopoly for Google search.

[flagged]

Re: Google vs. the Open Web

#139

Post by a2128 »

npteljes wrote: post #112
Alifatisk wrote: post #12

So, how can this be bypassed in theory? Any ideas? Brainstorming is allowed. EDIT: Saw a few mention two solutions to disable the automatic verification on iOS & macOS. https://blog.cloudflare.com/how-to-enable-private-access-tok... https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213449

My semi uninformed theories: 1. Someone could set up a server that proxies WEI required requests to regular clients. The client initiates the process, the request goes to the middleman, the middleman makes the proper WEI authorized request, gets the response, passes the response back to the client. 2. The private key could leak somehow, and so, software can forge the required signature. I'm not holding my breath for…

My guess is that on desktop, the endgame will involve implementing Easy Anti-Cheat levels of anti-tampering into the browser to prevent anyone from proxying through an automated Chrome instance or whatever. On Android, Google already has SafetyNet or Play Integrity, they can already refuse if the app or operating system has been modified

Re: Google vs. the Open Web

#140

Post by melvyn2 »

dur-randir wrote: post #40
sakex wrote: post #3

Soon, websites will require kernel access to make sure you don't have cheats installed. (Sarcasm, obviously)

Lots of online games already require that. Valve is especially notorious with that.

No, Valve is specifically noted for not having a kernel-driver anticheat in a landscape where most competitive games do use them. Notably, Easy Anti-Cheat, BattlEye, and Valorant's Vanguard all use kernel drivers, but no Valve Anti-Cheat has, because they've focused on server-side heuristics and crowed-sourced detection instead of trying to force the client to rat itself out.
Post reply on HN