281–290 of 394 posts
Whether it's AMP or manifest 3 or android source shenanigan or attempts to replace cookies with their FLOC nonsense or this...Google is rapidly turning into a malicious force when it comes to the open internet
Turns out RMS has always been right. How surprising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, fewer services and infinite fraud is substantially better to me than the web being controlled by Google even more than it already is.
It will be fewer accessible services for everyone who refuses to use this, that's for sure. In general though, service providers are not going to accept "fewer services and infinite fraud" and thus they will look into implementing this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We can "evit" it through thoughtful discussion, foresight, alternative mitigations, and even regulation Such as? I don't see how regulation would apply here without concrete technical solutions that enforce it. So what alternative mitigations do you have in mind?
Among many other things: Regulate the use of AI to imitate or impersonate human activity. Regulate AI crawling/scraping. Ban scraping entirely, and all models based on it. Regulate maximum model size. These wouldn't eliminate the problem, but they'd change it from "many people do this" to "this is always a malicious attack , react accordingly".
is it still 2023 in your reality?
as for the rest of it: my brother in Christ, may I remind you that America is not the only country in the world, that it does not own the Internet, and that its laws do not apply anywhere else? passing heckin' wholesome laws in one country will make no difference whatsoever when people and companies from 194 other countries can access the Internet and do things you don't like, just like you (for example) can be a LGBT on the Internet despite it being very illegal in Chechnya.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Whatever your definition of monopoly is, it's wrong Ok, so enlighten me which standard of monopoly they're so obviously breaking? > The threshold is not 100% market share. I never once said so I'm not arguing it requires 100% marketshare. I'm just pointing out there are tons of workable competitors out there, in fact one has to use a functional and fully featured competitors product to go and install Chrome on most…
> Ok, so enlighten me which standard of monopoly they're so obviously breaking? Breaking? They're being a monopoly by having a huge market share. A majority of browers are directly branded chrome, and the chrome team has strong codebase control over most of the alternatives too. Especially on desktop. It's that simple. > I'm not arguing it requires 100% marketshare. I'm just pointing out there are tons of workable co…
Marketshare alone isn't a defining part of if a product is a monopoly.
> majority of browers are directly branded chrome
They're not Chrome, in many extremely important aspects.
> The choices of users don't change whether something is a monopoly
The fact users can make a choice is a huge part of the argument that Chrome isn't a monopoly. There are lots of competitors out there that can be freely chosen. So much so people have to go out of their way to install Chrome.
When AT&T was ruled a monopoly it was practically the only choice in many markets. When Standard Oil was ruled a monopoly it was practically the only choice in many markets. People can choose Edge. People can choose Safari. People can choose Firefox. All of these browsers work fine (I've yet to be told a single other major feature they're missing despite asking many times), and are not Chrome.
Lay's sells like 60% or so of the chips sold in the US. Are they a monopoly? Are you practically unable to buy any other chips at the store outside of Lays products? I guess it's not really just marketshare that makes the difference! So just pointing at them and saying they're a monopoly because they have a large marketshare is meaningless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Turns out RMS has always been right. How surprising.
What is RMS’ solution to this problem?
Unfortunately, "build it yourself" is relatively easy when it comes to software, and almost impossible when it comes to the hardware running that software. It doesn't matter if you have full ownership of a complete open-source stack if no hardware manufacturer will permit you to run unsigned arbitrary code. The lack of open hardware--chips that you could build in your garage using materials nobody could reasonably prevent you from acquiring--is the lynchpin upon which open source software will wither and die.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Turns out RMS has always been right. How surprising.
What is RMS’ solution to this problem?
Whether it's AMP or manifest 3 or android source shenanigan or attempts to replace cookies with their FLOC nonsense or this...Google is rapidly turning into a malicious force when it comes to the open internet
Last time this happened we got a bunch of Google employees downplaying the impact of WEI and calling it a nothingburger, that people were being hysterical. I just checked, and everyone I saw defending it has since left the company. I'm sure another wave of Google managers, keen to appeal to the higher-ups, will be here to defend this new initiative any minute now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So now Chrome is a "monopoly" because they're "advertising their products everywhere possible". I guess I can only ever drink Redbull, they're a monopoly, because they're advertising their products everywhere. Seriously? That's our standard of what is a "monpoply"? Words have no meaning anymore. You can choose to use something different. The device you bought probably came with an alternative! Otherwise, the device n…
> Seriously? That's our standard of what is a "monpoply"? No. That part of the post was answering your question about how it impacts people. Not what makes it a monopoly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LLM’s can still only pass limited Touring Tests. The longer the interaction the worse they do. Which of course means you can easily create an experiment they successfully pass, but just as easily you can create an experiment where they fail. CAPTCHAs are nearly useless because of how little you need to pay humans to solve them.
A more interesting question is whether there is a Turing test that is easy for ALL humans to pass, while still being hard for LLMs. In practice, most of the major CAPTCHA vendors already rely on non-privacy-preserving tests for those needing more accessible solutions than a visual puzzle. Google's audio captcha (only available in a few languages and unusable for those who also have hearing issues) only works for a na…
Obviously, that's only solveable by sighted humans, not ones that are blind or have otherwise low vision.