3 ms·

"wherein users own their own data, encrypted by them, stored in the location of their choice, shared only as and when they explicitly approve" I'm probably a l

"wherein users own their own data, encrypted by them, stored in the location of their choice, shared only as and when they explicitly approve" I'm probably a little late to the party but I just now realized this is exactly DRM for the individual. I don't want anything with DRM and I don't want to impose DRM on anyone else. I dont see how one could be against DRM and for this.

JKCalhoun 9y ago
> I dont see how one could be against DRM and for this. It seems pretty simple to me. People oppose DRM because it is content they paid for and disallows their modifying, repurposing it, etc. None of those things apply to content I have created. I have the original, non-DRM'ed content that is always editable, I am the owner fo the content....
- jasonkostempski 9y ago
  So if your proud mom wants to share everything her kid is up to with everyone, including Zuckerberg (because he gave her a way to automate reposting your feed for her directly to Facebook), you don't want a way to prevent that?
stordoff 9y ago
The implementation may be similar, and arguably the term DRM could apply, but I imagine that a key difference is that DRM (in general) controls how a content recipient can use the content (e.g. I can't modify it, or I'm limited in what programs can open the file). Here, the goal is (presumably) to control who receives access to the content, but not imposing restrictions on people who do receive it.
- jasonkostempski 9y ago
  What about reposts, especially to platforms that don't play the game? The only thing that will stop your naive friend, who thinks your slightly off-color remark about the hot-topic of the week is pure gold, from reposting will be potential threats of legal repercussions if they do (some kind of DMCA amongst friends). Who the hell wants that? We're either asking for the same thing media companies have been seeking for decades, perfect DRM (billions of dollars haven't found that solutions yet), or we're admitting that none of this works unless everyone you share things with, and the people they share your thing with, completely agree with you about who should see the thing you just shared with them, and know how to prevent software from automatically doing it, perfect trust (most can't even keep their contact lists from leaking). I don't see either happening, ever. The goal here is to prevent powerful groups from building a profile so they can target ads/guns at you when they decide they want your money/life whenever they decide they deserve it. The only ways I can think of to do that are post anonymously, hope not to get doxed; or STFU and stop broadcasting your life. You can make laws that might make it unprofitable (most likely just for new-comers, the current players will just pay the fines), but that won't stop the guns.

JKCalhoun 9y ago

> I dont see how one could be against DRM and for this. It seems pretty simple to me. People oppose DRM because it is content they paid for and disallows their modifying, repurposing it, etc. None of those things apply to content I have created. I have the original, non-DRM'ed content that is always editable, I am the owner fo the content....

jasonkostempski 9y ago
So if your proud mom wants to share everything her kid is up to with everyone, including Zuckerberg (because he gave her a way to automate reposting your feed for her directly to Facebook), you don't want a way to prevent that?

stordoff 9y ago

The implementation may be similar, and arguably the term DRM could apply, but I imagine that a key difference is that DRM (in general) controls how a content recipient can use the content (e.g. I can't modify it, or I'm limited in what programs can open the file). Here, the goal is (presumably) to control who receives access to the content, but not imposing restrictions on people who do receive it.

jasonkostempski 9y ago
What about reposts, especially to platforms that don't play the game? The only thing that will stop your naive friend, who thinks your slightly off-color remark about the hot-topic of the week is pure gold, from reposting will be potential threats of legal repercussions if they do (some kind of DMCA amongst friends). Who the hell wants that? We're either asking for the same thing media companies have been seeking for decades, perfect DRM (billions of dollars haven't found that solutions yet), or we're admitting that none of this works unless everyone you share things with, and the people they share your thing with, completely agree with you about who should see the thing you just shared with them, and know how to prevent software from automatically doing it, perfect trust (most can't even keep their contact lists from leaking). I don't see either happening, ever. The goal here is to prevent powerful groups from building a profile so they can target ads/guns at you when they decide they want your money/life whenever they decide they deserve it. The only ways I can think of to do that are post anonymously, hope not to get doxed; or STFU and stop broadcasting your life. You can make laws that might make it unprofitable (most likely just for new-comers, the current players will just pay the fines), but that won't stop the guns.