4 ms·

> why would you think that using open source software to access bits off of global internet is unethical/illegitimate? "It's just bits." That's a slippery slop

by elwell 6y ago

> why would you think that using open source software to access bits off of global internet is unethical/illegitimate? "It's just bits." That's a slippery slope. One might argue that circumventing the intended purpose of a platform in this way uses technological advantage to take advantage of content creators who are vulnerable. The kid who takes all the candy from the "Please take one." jack-o-lantern on Halloween is only taking a bit of atoms from their neighbor's porch. Now let me get off my high horse and turn my ad blocker back on.

realusername 6y ago
> One might argue that circumventing the intended purpose of a platform in this way uses technological advantage to take advantage of content creators who are vulnerable. Youtube does not even run on a standard Android anymore (without Google proprietary bits) so that's not like some people have a choice anyways. If you want to use Youtube on a standard Android, you either have to use a modded version of Youtube or a third-party app. I'd argue that modifying manually the official version sounds worse.
627467 6y ago
But it's not really a slippery slope anymore: the world has gone down that slippery slope since the web has been created and operated and it's been great for everyone so far. Overall, the benefits of the "free bits" have enabled anyone to be a creator and create a audience for free, has enabled companies to become global in an instant reach potentially everyone with access to TCP/IP and DNS servers. But creators and operators are trying to shoehorn the global world into a handful of brands (YouTube, ig, fb...) and a handful of business models. If you were content creators before this age you had to suck it up to several layers of middle men, to get your content on tv, on cinema, on a CD. Now, the free bits lets you operate single handly from your bedroom. But is has a cost: you rely on gatekeepers to distribute your content and track your audience in the name of ad optimization and those users who they are trying to track - who are sovereign over their devices and software - can and will decide how they engage with the bits that reach their hardware and software. There are alternatives: aol used to operate a walled garden. Many countries try to operate their own walled gardens. I'm not making a judgment call, I know where I prefer to spend my time on. But people do have to climb down their high horses pretending the power dynamic on the open web is only favouring consumers and users
jdeibele 6y ago
I just spent a few hours at an elderly relative's house checking over her computer. She had her screen lock and a message on Chrome saying that she needed to "Call Microsoft" and she wasn't able to close the window, etc. So she called and "John Henderson" was able to talk her into installing LogMeIn. He then started about charging her $149 and she came to her senses and called me. I'm 99% sure that she was served some Javascript via an ad network. I installed uBlock Origin on both of her browsers. I tried changing her DNS to Adguard but it turns out that Comcast hasn't let people change DNS on their routers for many years. Even if you change it on your personal device, they'll force DNS on you. I have been debating putting ad-blocking on their computer because I've worried about something like this happening. I'd also worried about some site not functioning properly because of ads being blocked. But we'll deal with that if and when. Sorry but not sorry to sites that are doing 3rd party ad networks that they don't audit.
- emilburzo 6y ago
  > Even if you change it on your personal device, they'll force DNS on you. How does that work?
  - ornornor 6y ago
    Firewall rule in the router to hijack port 53 traffic and send it to their own dns instead?
- charsi 6y ago
  Firefox does DNS over HTTPS now. That should bypass DNS spoofing by any ISP.
mucle6 6y ago
I really appreciate the humorous self awareness. It's a breath of humanity that I don't often see on the internet.

by elwell 6y ago

realusername 6y ago

> One might argue that circumventing the intended purpose of a platform in this way uses technological advantage to take advantage of content creators who are vulnerable. Youtube does not even run on a standard Android anymore (without Google proprietary bits) so that's not like some people have a choice anyways. If you want to use Youtube on a standard Android, you either have to use a modded version of Youtube or a third-party app. I'd argue that modifying manually the official version sounds worse.

627467 6y ago

But it's not really a slippery slope anymore: the world has gone down that slippery slope since the web has been created and operated and it's been great for everyone so far. Overall, the benefits of the "free bits" have enabled anyone to be a creator and create a audience for free, has enabled companies to become global in an instant reach potentially everyone with access to TCP/IP and DNS servers. But creators and operators are trying to shoehorn the global world into a handful of brands (YouTube, ig, fb...) and a handful of business models. If you were content creators before this age you had to suck it up to several layers of middle men, to get your content on tv, on cinema, on a CD. Now, the free bits lets you operate single handly from your bedroom. But is has a cost: you rely on gatekeepers to distribute your content and track your audience in the name of ad optimization and those users who they are trying to track - who are sovereign over their devices and software - can and will decide how they engage with the bits that reach their hardware and software. There are alternatives: aol used to operate a walled garden. Many countries try to operate their own walled gardens. I'm not making a judgment call, I know where I prefer to spend my time on. But people do have to climb down their high horses pretending the power dynamic on the open web is only favouring consumers and users

jdeibele 6y ago

I just spent a few hours at an elderly relative's house checking over her computer. She had her screen lock and a message on Chrome saying that she needed to "Call Microsoft" and she wasn't able to close the window, etc. So she called and "John Henderson" was able to talk her into installing LogMeIn. He then started about charging her $149 and she came to her senses and called me. I'm 99% sure that she was served some Javascript via an ad network. I installed uBlock Origin on both of her browsers. I tried changing her DNS to Adguard but it turns out that Comcast hasn't let people change DNS on their routers for many years. Even if you change it on your personal device, they'll force DNS on you. I have been debating putting ad-blocking on their computer because I've worried about something like this happening. I'd also worried about some site not functioning properly because of ads being blocked. But we'll deal with that if and when. Sorry but not sorry to sites that are doing 3rd party ad networks that they don't audit.

emilburzo 6y ago
> Even if you change it on your personal device, they'll force DNS on you. How does that work?
- ornornor 6y ago
  Firewall rule in the router to hijack port 53 traffic and send it to their own dns instead?
charsi 6y ago
Firefox does DNS over HTTPS now. That should bypass DNS spoofing by any ISP.

mucle6 6y ago

I really appreciate the humorous self awareness. It's a breath of humanity that I don't often see on the internet.