Hello
Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged
301–310 of 394 posts
Re: Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bombing every AI data center on Earth would also solve the Internet-existential problems we're facing. But that solution is beyond the pale of course, instead it's incumbent on me to prove to you that panopticon surveillance of every living human being from now until the Sun consumes us is not a reasonable solution to "bots use the Internet".
Ok so what's your solution to the bot problem? I don't have one, unless you count the option of websites not being free-as-in-beer anymore.
First, I would sooner support the criminalization of misrepresentation of web traffic as human when it is actually a bot than I would allow companies to de-facto require bio-authentication on approved hardware+software stacks to participate in online life. Let the courts sort it out from there. Second, it's not my problem if some website's business model doesn't work anymore, and I resent them trying to make it my problem. If a website is offering a vital service then it is access to that service that needs to be preserved, not whatever company happens to be offering it, especially not if the cost of keeping them solvent is giving up entirely on privacy rights.
Re: Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
> having a huge market share. 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 b…
> Marketshare alone isn't a defining part of if a product is a monopoly. Yes it is. You're thinking of something else. > The fact users can make a choice is a huge part of the argument that Chrome isn't a monopoly. That argument is wrong. It's size and market power. If users could change but don't, the monopoly company still has huge power. > Lay's sells like 60% or so of the chips sold in the US. Are they a monopoly…
> It's size and market power
Finally one states something other than its a monopoly because it has market share or because its advertised heavily. Its a monopoly because it allegedly has market power. But does it, really?
> If users could change but don't, the monopoly company still has huge power.
Is it that it has power or just that its currently popular?
I once again ask, what features actually force me to use Chrome over the other products on the market? If there are none, how does it actually have "market power"? What truly makes me use Chrome over the others? The fact its highly advertised?
Market power is usually defined as "a firm's ability to profitably raise prices above the competitive level (marginal cost) without losing significant sales to competitors." Clearly we're not talking about prices here, practically all the prices are free here. So we're talking other kinds of featuresets. What is this market power, other than users like it? I've asked many times, and yet everyone has refused to answer this core, critical part of the claim.
If people can make a choice for a competitor's product that's priced the exact same and has essentially the same feature set, how does Chrome have "market power"?
I pointed out WebUSB. For a bit pretty much only Chrome supported it. Is that really market power that's pushing everyone to use Chrome? What other things are actually giving it that immense market power you claim?
Re: Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is RMS’ solution to this problem?
Uncompromisingly insist on only using things you have ultimate ownership and control over, even when that means dramatic and life-altering inconvenience, and where those things don't exist, build them yourself. 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 com…
So why doesn’t someone build these chips in their garage then?
Re: Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
>Regulate maximum model size. 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…
> is it still 2023 in your reality?
No, it's 2026, years into a "break the law rapidly and make ourselves too big to regulate" strategy, and it needs dealing with.
> may I remind you that America is not the only country in the world
It's a good thing other countries are also able to regulate, and international treaties are a thing. It's also a good thing when things hill-climb towards improvement, even if they don't get better everywhere simultaneously.
Acting helpless or hopeless does not get things done. People saying it's impossible is a distraction from trying to get things done. Decide to win, rather than justifying why you're going to lose.
Re: Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is RMS’ solution to this problem?
Uncompromisingly insist on only using things you have ultimate ownership and control over, even when that means dramatic and life-altering inconvenience, and where those things don't exist, build them yourself. 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 com…
There is already plenty of open hardware, it's just not this-year's-top-performance.
In the category of ~1-3 years' performance lag you get Rockchip and friends, which are closed hardware that allows open computation. See computers made by the company MNT as an example.
In the category of ~5 years' performance lag you get "soft" cores, where you buy an FPGA (dynamically reprogrammable hardware) and make it run a CPU you design yourself. If you want to, for example, make your CPU have more cache and fewer ALUs, you can do that by tweaking some files and reprogramming the FPGA. This has a cost in terms of power efficiency and runtime speed, but you can absolutely run a full Linux desktop experience on an FPGA today, and the hardware has no way to try to prevent you from running any software.
You can solve the problem of all the cellular basebands being closed source with either software-defined-radio or using a closed USB/PCIe cellular modem connected to an open processor.
Re: Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
It cracks me up when people say Chrome is a monopoly, because a massive amount of computing devices do not even ship with Chrome. Windows computers, Macbooks, and iPhones require users go search out and install Chrome on their own out of their own volition, shipping with entirely functional and decent browsers out of the box that they have lots of patterns to push. Even many Android phones ship with browsers other th…
What's the point of this pedantry? Replace "monopoly" with "dominant market player" and their point still stands. A company doesn't need to be a literal monopoly to engage in anti-competitive behavior. The EU would call this "abuse of dominance". [1] >> Google holds absolute authority on how websites are rendered and if websites can be found. This is still 100% correct. Google owns the dominant browser and the domina…
> If you're a publisher (i.e. anyone who hosts a website) you're forced to fall in line or go out of business.
What features of Chrome are website publishers forced to fall in line with or go out of business that practically other browser makers aren't also pushing?
Re: Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged
#308I do wonder how people who work on this don't see themselves as the bad guy.
$$$
Re: Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Marketshare alone isn't a defining part of if a product is a monopoly. Yes it is. You're thinking of something else. > The fact users can make a choice is a huge part of the argument that Chrome isn't a monopoly. That argument is wrong. It's size and market power. If users could change but don't, the monopoly company still has huge power. > Lay's sells like 60% or so of the chips sold in the US. Are they a monopoly…
> It's size and market power Finally one states something other than its a monopoly because it has market share or because its advertised heavily. Its a monopoly because it allegedly has market power . But does it, really? > If users could change but don't, the monopoly company still has huge power. Is it that it has power or just that its currently popular? I once again ask, what features actually force me to use Ch…
> I've asked many times, and yet everyone has refused to answer this core, critical part of the claim.
It's a core, critical part of a monopoly abuse claim, not a monopoly claim. I don't want to get in that argument.
They don't have some weird ultra low market power for their size. They're a monopoly.
Re: Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hate this trite and the managers that say "don't bring me problems, bring me solutions" nonsense. I'm not the person to be able to fix it so the solution is make the problem known so others responsible can fix it. If I could fix it, I wouldn't be telling you about the problem. If anything, I would tell you how I fixed an issue in some stand up or other of the many meetings scheduled keeping me from working.
I am only aware of two solutions: 1) proof of identity, tying accounts to real-world things that are hard or impossible to replicate 2) proof of work, tying accounts or actions to the ability to run computations Proof of identity in theory can solve the problem but at the cost of privacy. Proof of work can be defeated but has the possibility of preserving privacy.
3) micropayments
There are many issues with those, like the wildly different standards of living across the globe. OTOH anyone can acquire Monero if they want to. But someone from a rich country will likely be able to pay for more fake accounts/visits than someone from a poor country. With the ad market the difference between where the visitor is from is very important. Some ad clicks may cost a dollar if they're coming from a rich country and 0.01 cents if they're coming from a poor country.
I'm not suggesting cryptocurrency micropayments for accessing the web but it's on par with PoW in that it only requires money, not privacy.
Perhaps the way forward is for people to wake up and stop visiting sites that infringe on their privacy.