Anti circumventing pushed by an article that doesn’t let me circumvent the cookie consent is really next level.
Ironically I’ve just uninstalled the guardian app because it wouldn’t let me circumvent the number of articles I could read per month.
I read that as
Let’s end anti circumsicion!
And got confused fast
😭😭 SAME whats wrong w me 😭😂😂
I read it as “Let’s end anti-consumerism” and thought “Well that’s a brave thing to post on Lemmy of all places”
If you didn’t already hear it, Cory Doctorow recently gave a talk about this at 39C3, the Chaos Computer Club conference. Search “A post-American, enshittification-resistant internet” in your frontend of choice
At first I thought the title said, “Let’s end Anti-Circumcision”. I was like, “why?”.
This was on my feed right after the ‘UK to consider circumcision is abuse’ article, I got very confused for a second
Bosch is coming out with modular devices that are DMCA locked. I think a a coffee machine from the recent ces
The European Commission claims to promote open source and freedom from foreign tech abuses, etc. It now seeks feedbacks from communities: “Towards European open digital ecosystems”.
It seems to be perfect timing for getting rid of that article 6 which turns
turns what?
The suspense is killing me
around
Right round?
Like a record, baby.
If we can convince the ignorant masses to stop buying based on consumerism and purchase based on well informed decisions instead then we would see a shift in enshittification or at least have alternatives. But that’s very unlikely since it’s easier to conform and fall in line and accept your fate.
Think of how much people whine about printer ink without A) looking for alternatives and B) questioning why their printer was fucking free (with rebate).
I thought this for a long time. However currently I am no longer convinced. The production is so far decoupled from the consumer and often investor (or otherwise) dependant. So the consumer doesn’t really necessarily have the chance to support a good company nor do good things need to be offered.
I short: eat the rich and reform the stock market.
It’s long time propaganda pushing the fault to the consumer (e. G. Footprint invented. By oil companies)
It also expects that people are content to actually fix things, or sew tears in clothing, or whatever, and that often requires a little research and initiative in a world where it’s been made abundantly cheap and convenient to just replace almost everything.
I don’t think it’s necessarily ignorance so much as a combination of laziness and incredible convenience.
A few years ago I taught myself to fix my laptop screen via Youtube and saved myself a $400 repair, but most people would just chuck it and buy a new one.
The issue is not whether people are willing to do it, but whether they should be allowed to.
I can’t think of any situation where disallowing people from repairing their own property makes any sense. The only ones it makes sense to are the ones who profit from it.
Also, it won’t always be them. It will be a repair shop. If things were built to be repaired, it would be quicker and cheaper to repair them.
I can’t think of any situation where disallowing people from repairing their own property makes any sense.
I can think of one, but the issue is largely a thing of the past: old CRT TV’s or monitors. If you attempt to repair one without knowing what you’re doing, you literally could get yourself killed.
That said, I still agree with you wholeheartedly. I’d much rather mandate dangerous to repair products be labeled as such, but the design and construction of consumer products should never prohibit the end user from being able to repair their own property.
We need to mandate interoperability and open protocols (as we did with all our other communication media prior) to avoid the siloing of users in captured commercial ecosystems.
Call me optimistic, but I truly believe there’s going to be such a tech boom once the market outside the US is insightful enough to look backwards and point their finger at the things that worked well and that people actually wanted and iterate off that instead of this failed path, dead end.
Whilst I have no evidence for it (it’s not like we have an alternate timeline to compare to), I believe that the changes to Intellectual Property legislation in the last couple of decades have actually slowed down innovation, probably severely so.
Certainly in Tech it feels like there’s less of a culture of tinkering and hacking (in the original sense of the word) nowadays than back in the 80s and 90s, even though with the Internet and the easy access to information on it one would expect the very opposite.
Instead of countless crazy ideas like in the age of the generalisation of computing, open source and the birth of the Internet, we instead have closed environments gatekept by large companies for the purposed of extracting rents from everybody, all of which made possible by bought for legislation to stop users from breaking out and competitors from breaking in.
I mean, outside the natural process of moving everything done before from analog to digital-online (i.e. a natural over time migration to the new environments made available by the inventions of computing and the global open network from the late part of the XX Century) the greatest “innovations” in Tech of the last 30 years were making computers small enough to fit in your pocket (i.e. smartphones) - a natural consequence of the Moore Law - and a digital parrot/mediocre content generator.
Now wonder that China, with their “we don’t give a shit about IP” posture has powered through from Tech backwater to taking the lead from the West on various technologies (first solar, now EVs) even though (from what I’ve heard) their educational systems doesn’t reward innovative thinking.
So in my view only if Europe ditches the IP legislation pushed by the US in Trade Treaties does it have a chance to be part of any upcoming Tech revolutions rather than stagnating right alongside in the US whilst trying to extract ever diminishing rents from the tail ends of the adoption phases of last century’s technologies.
I agree. The problem is complex and layered, I don’t claim to fully understand it myself, but the problem is that innovation came to mean “innovation on creating capital” and not “innovation on serving the customer”. If you haven’t read Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Shosana Zuboff, I highly recommend it. It lays a lot of the groundwork for what Cory Doctorow would go on to call enshittification.
On top of that, or maybe underneath it, is the idea of disruption. It has long been joked as “ignoring regulations” which has very much become true. When you can’t exploit the current systems you create parallel systems where you are in control of the playing field. Disruption to innovation, innovation to disruption. To the consumer it’s just disruption.
What we’ve ended up with as a result over the past decade and a half or so is a market that is not beholden to the consumer at all. We’ve long known that boycotts are fairly ineffective aside from some occasional groundswell on “culture war” issues, but it doesn’t feel like we’re the market anymore. Look at Nvidia’s recent presentation at the CES which wasn’t even about consumers at all, it was about AI and datacenters mostly. They fully dictate the market at us now and we’re just along for the ride.
BUT to my hopefulness above, there are still a few ways to break free of this, I don’t believe things are so bad as that yet. There does seem to be a real choking point for the consumer, Microsoft is another good example. They continue to leverage their market position but people are rapidly exploring options away from them wherever possible. I don’t think we’ll ever truly see a “year of the Linux desktop” the way some people expect, but the slow erosion is real. Another article I think about a lot is the breaching the trust thermocline which theorizes that customer trust is not a linear system. Executives like to believe that once things begin to sour they can simply make a change to correct course when the course was already lost some time ago.
You don’t think the billionaires will just do the same thing with the non US technology? Unfortunately it’s up to regulators to decide much of this issue, and when they’re in the pocket of the billionaires it’s not good.
This is a tricky debate, with mostly religious and traditionalist people on one side, and people against unnecessary surgical procedures on the other. Either way, I think once the foreskin is removed, it should be treated as medical waste.
Nono, you’re thinking of circumcision. This is about a big meeting where furries celebrate their favorite animes or something
Nono, you’re thinking of a convention. This is about a psychological treatment that makes gay men like women.
No no, that’s conversion therapy. This is about the use of an unnecessarily large number of words to express an idea.
Nono, you’re thinking of circumlocution. This is about building a wall around a besieged city.
No no, you’re thinking of circumvallation. This is about sailing a ship all around the Earth.
No no, that’s circumnavigation. This is about the length of the perimeter around a circle
Nono, you’re thinking of circumference. This is about a semi-precious gemstone in the shape of a small, domesticated mustelid.
ETA: Maybe it’s too hard. I am thinking of a …
spoiler
zircon ferret
Okay, now you have to tell me how you plan to circumcise locusts. Don’t be ridiculous.
No no, you’re thinking of circumvallation. This is about traveling around the entire globe by ship.
The other user’s was better, so I’m hiding this one
spoiler
Nono, you’re thinking of conversion therapy. This is about going to a priest to tell them about your sins
Ah yes, I think we all remember the moment back in 2016 when Apple famously announced the removal of the foreskin from the iPhone 7.
You just knew it was the first step in getting rid of the headphone jack… and it made the mens line at the Apple Store, ironically, very long
to be fair, wireless headphones are handy. the wire itself is an annoyance. i’m glad its gone, for the most part. But physical media being gone and evertything being replaced with someones computer in the cloud… its stupid. and more expensive. i don’t like it.
I believe credit for the first occurrence goes back to Ferdinand Magellan. Although he himself did not have the procedure, his crew did after his death in 1521.
I think you accidentally posted this on the wrong thread, but it’s fine because I know exactly the thread you meant, and the word circumvention didn’t help the situation :D
Government officials are really scared of changing the status quo. They’re really afraid that if they get rid of anti-circumvention laws, that they’ll become a pariah state. In the past that probably would have been true. The US would have thrown its weight around, and Europe would have fallen in line and boycotted whoever it was. Many countries also have a lot of Hollywood productions made there. The major Hollywood studios care about anti-circumvention because they think it guarantees their profits. So, if these countries scaled back anti-circumvention, Hollywood would probably throw a fit and cut them off too. Even if the economic impact of getting rid of anti-circumvention were a huge positive, Hollywood has a big cultural impact worldwide.
I’d like to see it happen, but I think the most likely scenario is that a country that already doesn’t fully respect US copyright laws, like Switzerland or Singapore, might take an additional step and stop respecting anti-circumvention.
The total abolition of capitalism is the only thing that will end enshittification and fascism. Everything else is just cope and/or baby steps.
Declaring ‘This thing <always the thing that is not being done> is the only thing that can work, what you are suggesting is stupid/won’t work/pointless’
This message is just: “Give up, Give up, Give up” with more grammatical complexity.
Do you want to be one step closer to fascism or one step further away? Actively attempting to discourage people makes me think it is the former.
How you going to make the argument that maintaining capitalism takes you further away from fascism? Capitalism is fascism. They’re intrinsically linked. The latter is the end result of the former.
Yes capitalism’s end state is a monopoly on power, aka a fascist dictatorship. I never made an argument stating otherwise.
Ending Anti-Circumvention is taking power away from capitalists. They can no longer send the law to lock you in jail because you edited the firmware of a device that you own. That’s a move in the opposite direction of capitalism.
I am a leftist and I am advocating, as always, for solidarity across the working class, unionizing, getting organized, and participating in direct action. I encourage collective acts of sabotage and resistance against the authoritarian regime.
You can believe in false hope, or accept the reality of your situation and work towards goals which actually have a chance of succeeding, it’s up to you.
Edit: To get involved in a real action that might actually improve our situation, join the IWW.
your Industrial Workers of the World only seems to exist in the USA; a disproportionately problematic but still relatively small part of the world.
They exist in several countries but are most active in the US, the UK, Canada, Oceania, and Europe. Which is still, indeed, a disproportionately problematic but still relatively small part of the world, but also probably most of the userbase of Lemmy
A fair response. Just couldn’t see anything except US references when I looked at the site.
I’m a psychic reindeer in Santa’s sleigh team and I always tell the truth or my nose grows 6 inches so you know that I’m not lying. We can be anything that we want to be on the Internet, it only takes a few twitches of the finger (or output vector, in most cases).
There’s been a lot of ‘Fellow Leftists’ showing up on Lemmy recently and they all of the newcomers seem to be attempting to foment political violence and discourage real people from any other plans that they may be forming.
The topic of the post is about some concrete action that is being suggested to improve the situation and your comment is ‘Nah fellow leftists, lets go do some sabotage and resistance instead’. No details or the suggestion of an actual proposed series of steps to be taken, just a general push in the direction of political violence with smidgeon of ‘Your idea is dumb’.
Now, to me, I think that we don’t need that kind of person/bot in this community. If you want to be a person of action, then live up to your dreams in your own life.
You’re in a social media space that we know is being monitored in an attempt to locate dissenters so that the administration can slap the ‘terrorist’ label on them. This is something anybody who is even remotely active in this space will understand.
So, it immediately stands out as fake when someone claims to be and old veteran leftist (look at the account age and comments, no way to fake that guys!) and also thinks that spreading violent rhetoric on public social media is the move. The only people talking about violence on social media are soon to be imprisoned naive idiots and the bots/agents that influence them.
Nobody take this bait.
Yeah, you got me, clearly the only way that someone could disagree with you, is because they’re a fake bot shill with a fake account history because that’s the only plausible reality in which you could be wrong about something.
There’s definitely no way that I spent hours last week arguing against violence in a leftist memes community, because I am clearly a bot.
Give me a break.
I don’t know, it sounds like a pretty convincing argument to me.
It’s a strange take to say “you’re wasting your time trying to get legislation passed” I mean, that’s one of the primary ways you change anything in a country…
And it’s plain stupid to say the only solution to a problem is the “complete abolition of capitalism” and then the next moment, suggest someone else is asking the impossible by trying to get some minor policy changed… That’s just bonkers. I mean, that simply destroys your credibility for the rest of the conversation, it’s gone.
Yeah, and I spent the last week ice skating on Europa and coaching the Bears to victory.
You can’t appeal to your own authority on the Internet, we’re all anonymous strangers who may as well have just popped into existence 15 seconds ago (in some cases, very literally).
Don’t push ideas that look like they’re suggesting violence, if you’re on my side on that idea then you’ll have no trouble with my position of ‘violence bad’ even if it hurt your feelings a little bit.
I’m not appealing to authority at all, I was just explaining that I was a leftist because your comment seemed to suggest I was encouraging people to “give up”, which is the exact opposite of what I want. I want people to get involved in direct action, civil resistance, and yes, acts of sabotage against the regime.
I am firmly of the opinion that violence never makes anything better, but I completely understand why people, even leftists, advocate for violence. I don’t think they’re fake, or bots, I just think they are leftists who have been socialised in our mainstream media environment which teaches us that violence is a solution to our problems.
I think your response was a bit silly, and jumped to a lot of conclusions, but it didn’t hurt my feelings. I want to continue to reiterate that reforms to capitalism merely prolong it, and misuses the energy of activists which could be far better spent on actually unionizing, organizing, building solidarity, and direct action.
