5 ms·

What is all these negative nonsense about "people don't give a shit" on every thread about this. We don't need every single person in the street to give a shit.

What is all these negative nonsense about "people don't give a shit" on every thread about this. We don't need every single person in the street to give a shit. We only need enough influence within the industry and regulatory to give a shit. And they are. We are all upset by this and upvoting it and companies and organizations are writing about it. Keep that up and push for other companies to reject it or for regulation to stop it. You know what Google fears most? Being broken down. If they push for this, we can organize calls to our representatives and raise our concerns and call for regulations and/or breakdown of Google's anti competitive behavior.

amelius 3y ago
Here's an idea: websites should show an annoying window when the user agent supports this crap, regardless of whether it's relevant to the website. Activism isn't restricted to the real world, or to "regular" people.
- arsome 3y ago
  Hah, I like this idea, "It appears your browser passes web environment integrity, please come back when it fails"... I'd love to see a similar thing for SafetyNet on Android.
- timeon 3y ago
  Why not. There are countless job positions for UX-designer unicorns while almost every page will give you anti-UX pop-up. One more banner will not going to harm the page.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  I don't know that protest by mass suicide has ever changed anything.
  - amelius 3y ago
    Most protesting has some negative consequences for the person(s) doing it. Suicide is a bit strong, to say the least.
- lern_too_spel 3y ago
  What are iOS users to do? They have no choice but to use a browser with PAT support.
GoblinSlayer 3y ago
[flagged]
- meepmorp 3y ago
  Please don't do that. People with different ideas aren't shills - sometimes people disagree with you, see things that you don't or just understand the situation differently. It's a bullshit way to dismiss people's opinions.
  - Given_47 3y ago
    I’m pretty sure they’re referring to people that promote an idea/say something solely in exchange for money
  - CaptainFever 3y ago
    At the same time, astroturfing exists. It’s also incredibly frustrating how every time there’s a movement, people try to dampen its momentum by drawing attention to general apathy, a complete red herring for reasons explained in the GGP comment.
pessimizer 3y ago
> We only need enough influence within the industry and regulatory to give a shit. What exactly is this supposed to mean? All we have to do is control the government and the industry that we're complaining about, and we can win? They already have that. Doesn't that mean they already won? > Keep that up and push for other companies to reject it or for regulation to stop it. They are being paid to push in the opposite direction. You are paying to try to defeat them. Each of their victories brings them more money and influence, each of yours means you have to reset and construct an entirely new argument to defeat the same thing again, differently worded. The outcome is obvious. And in this special case, Google needs no approval to take the web, because they bought Firefox and cooperate with Apple. There is no pressure that you can bring to a politician that will counteract the campaign funding, or access, or future employment, these awful companies can offer. edit: This is a "why didn't the slaves all get together and end slavery" type argument. It's not cynical to resent the suggestion of the same tactics that have failed before so many times. Our problem is government, not any particular company.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > All we have to do is control the government and the industry that we're complaining about, and we can win? They already have that. Nobody controls all of the industry or all of the government. Half the people on this site work in the industry, often in prominent companies in a position of influence. Many of them own a major stake in a prominent startup, or operate a community with a large number of users. Legislators care about whatever they think voters care about, and use voters calling them as a proxy for this. Don't pretend this doesn't matter. > They are being paid to push in the opposite direction. You are paying to try to defeat them. Each of their victories brings them more money and influence, each of yours means you have to reset and construct an entirely new argument to defeat the same thing again, differently worded. The outcome is obvious. Every time they do something like this, another person gets pissed off enough to extricate the perpetrator's services from their life even if it means re-implementing some of them themselves, and then post what they used to do it on Github. Which makes it easier for the next person to do it. Some of them even find a way to make a business out of it and make money. I know it's not a popular belief, but it's actually possible to build a sustainable business by giving customers what they want for a fair price and not screwing them over -- businesses may find that customers even prefer this. We're not all connecting to AOL using AT&T Unix(R) on Itanium. Why not? Those companies had real power. How did they lose? > This is a "why didn't the slaves all get together and end slavery" type argument. Your argument is what, that no one should make any attempt to end slavery because the slavers have too much power? No, you keep fighting until you win. Be creative, coordinate with like-minded people. This is not a community of powerless victims. There are people who hate this who have money and skill in surplus. It's not illegal to do something which is net negative for you but net positive for society purely out of altruism, or anger, because it's your life and you get to choose what you do. Reallocate the time you spend advocating defeatism to building something which is a threat to the people attacking you.

amelius 3y ago

Here's an idea: websites should show an annoying window when the user agent supports this crap, regardless of whether it's relevant to the website. Activism isn't restricted to the real world, or to "regular" people.

arsome 3y ago
Hah, I like this idea, "It appears your browser passes web environment integrity, please come back when it fails"... I'd love to see a similar thing for SafetyNet on Android.
timeon 3y ago
Why not. There are countless job positions for UX-designer unicorns while almost every page will give you anti-UX pop-up. One more banner will not going to harm the page.
pessimizer 3y ago
I don't know that protest by mass suicide has ever changed anything.
- amelius 3y ago
  Most protesting has some negative consequences for the person(s) doing it. Suicide is a bit strong, to say the least.
lern_too_spel 3y ago
What are iOS users to do? They have no choice but to use a browser with PAT support.

GoblinSlayer 3y ago

[flagged]

meepmorp 3y ago
Please don't do that. People with different ideas aren't shills - sometimes people disagree with you, see things that you don't or just understand the situation differently. It's a bullshit way to dismiss people's opinions.
- Given_47 3y ago
  I’m pretty sure they’re referring to people that promote an idea/say something solely in exchange for money
- CaptainFever 3y ago
  At the same time, astroturfing exists. It’s also incredibly frustrating how every time there’s a movement, people try to dampen its momentum by drawing attention to general apathy, a complete red herring for reasons explained in the GGP comment.

pessimizer 3y ago

> We only need enough influence within the industry and regulatory to give a shit. What exactly is this supposed to mean? All we have to do is control the government and the industry that we're complaining about, and we can win? They already have that. Doesn't that mean they already won? > Keep that up and push for other companies to reject it or for regulation to stop it. They are being paid to push in the opposite direction. You are paying to try to defeat them. Each of their victories brings them more money and influence, each of yours means you have to reset and construct an entirely new argument to defeat the same thing again, differently worded. The outcome is obvious. And in this special case, Google needs no approval to take the web, because they bought Firefox and cooperate with Apple. There is no pressure that you can bring to a politician that will counteract the campaign funding, or access, or future employment, these awful companies can offer. edit: This is a "why didn't the slaves all get together and end slavery" type argument. It's not cynical to resent the suggestion of the same tactics that have failed before so many times. Our problem is government, not any particular company.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> All we have to do is control the government and the industry that we're complaining about, and we can win? They already have that. Nobody controls all of the industry or all of the government. Half the people on this site work in the industry, often in prominent companies in a position of influence. Many of them own a major stake in a prominent startup, or operate a community with a large number of users. Legislators care about whatever they think voters care about, and use voters calling them as a proxy for this. Don't pretend this doesn't matter. > They are being paid to push in the opposite direction. You are paying to try to defeat them. Each of their victories brings them more money and influence, each of yours means you have to reset and construct an entirely new argument to defeat the same thing again, differently worded. The outcome is obvious. Every time they do something like this, another person gets pissed off enough to extricate the perpetrator's services from their life even if it means re-implementing some of them themselves, and then post what they used to do it on Github. Which makes it easier for the next person to do it. Some of them even find a way to make a business out of it and make money. I know it's not a popular belief, but it's actually possible to build a sustainable business by giving customers what they want for a fair price and not screwing them over -- businesses may find that customers even prefer this. We're not all connecting to AOL using AT&T Unix(R) on Itanium. Why not? Those companies had real power. How did they lose? > This is a "why didn't the slaves all get together and end slavery" type argument. Your argument is what, that no one should make any attempt to end slavery because the slavers have too much power? No, you keep fighting until you win. Be creative, coordinate with like-minded people. This is not a community of powerless victims. There are people who hate this who have money and skill in surplus. It's not illegal to do something which is net negative for you but net positive for society purely out of altruism, or anger, because it's your life and you get to choose what you do. Reallocate the time you spend advocating defeatism to building something which is a threat to the people attacking you.