4 ms·
If you visit the subreddits for these games, most people support it as well. No one wants to have cheaters in their game.
by ncann 5y ago
If you visit the subreddits for these games, most people support it as well. No one wants to have cheaters in their game.
- daneel_w 5y agoTrue, no one wants that. It's an entirely unsurprising sentiment, really. But it's in no way whatsoever mutually exclusive with disliking this specific approach.
- lkjdsklf 5y agoMost people in the gaming communnity don't think about the implications of software like this. They just see it as more effective anti-cheat and don't consider the security and privacy concerns that come with something like this
- vkou 5y agoThey think about the implications, and have accurately judged the risk to be worth it. Riot games isn't going to steal your banking info, your nudes, or your super-secret startup idea. It's not going to post pictures of MAGA hats on your facebook, and it's not going to take over your web browser. It's not going to drone strike your location, or kidnap you into a concentration camp because you're ______. It doesn't have the power of pit and gallows over you. If you're being repressed, what you have is a political problem, not a technological one. If you're being robbed, you should probably only install binary blobs that come from legitimate enterprises.
- lkjdsklf 5y agoYou're kind of proving my point. The implication of this software isn't that Riot is going to steal your banking info. What would they possibly do with it? They're a legit business. They can't just starting selling bank credentials or billing people randomly. There's potentially lots of less sensitive information that most people would consider "not Riot's business" that they can get at with this software. Will they? probably not. It's how much do you trust Riot. And none of that even begins to address the security concerns of having software running with elevated privileges. I'm not saying it isn't worth it to some people or that it's unreasonable to decide that it is worth it. I'm saying most people don't understand or consider the implications.
- vkou 5y ago> And none of that even begins to address the security concerns of having software running with elevated privileges. Laymen are even more paranoid about it than techies. Most people incorrectly assume that a malicious program can do just as much damage to your system as a rootkit. They are already willing to accept the maximum possible risk, just from installing a binary blob. But unlike techies, they spend less time wargaming all the ways in which vendors of these programs seek to wrong them. This doesn't make them ignorant - at least, it doesn't make them ignorant in the way that you imply.
- zahis121 5y ago[flagged]
- zahis121 5y ago[flagged]
- zahis121 5y ago[flagged]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- pugets 5y agoToo many people have a thought process that is along the lines of "[Bad thing] happens? They should make a law against that." That's the end of it, to them. They're not necessarily thinking about the Nth order effects that that their approach would have on society.
- klabb3 5y agoIt's really the middle school teacher approach to cheating. It's also fascinating to see the sentiment difference between online gaming and remote education. Not that proctor malware isn't worse, it is, but that the arguments in this thread would have been aggressively downvoted in those other threads.
- gruez 5y agoThat sound suspiciously close to how we got the PATRIOT act after 9/11.