2 ms·

What a dangerous perspective. When I visit a website and send a request for a URL and they chose to send back some data that is not creating a foreign embassy o

What a dangerous perspective. When I visit a website and send a request for a URL and they chose to send back some data that is not creating a foreign embassy on my computer. There's no enclave in which their rules apply instead of mine. It's my hard drive and ram and the state of them is mine as well. Yes, it's their data. But it's my computer. I can chose to change the font size, the css attributes, or even javascript functions if I so chose. This entitlement that many corporations display towards human people is like they think you sat down on a computer terminal they own in their physical store. That's not what's happening. If I don't want to execute the code someone else sent me I don't have to. It's ignorant lawyer-think to believe otherwise.

konschubert 3y ago
And they can choose not to send you their data.
- superkuh 3y ago
  Right. They already have the solution in the form of the black box DRM "Encrypted Media Extensions". I have intentionally turned off support for this in my browsers so I cannot view "live" streams and commercial media on youtube. Seems like it's working fine. If youtube wants to stop acting like a free video host for non-corporate humans it's certainly going to drive down the traffic. It'd break 15 years of precedent and usage. I don't think they'll do this. Instead they'll just keep pressuring for absurd legal interpretations, threatening the technologically ignorant, and only buy district attorneys to enforce their absurd legal perspectives when someone technical rocks the boat.
readthenotes1 3y ago
Print ads and TV commercials never unexpectedly did something that lingered.
cowl 3y ago
you request an URL, you can not specify what content that URL provides. This is not a new precedent or perspective. It's how Internet works. You can choose what the content owner chooses to let you choose. Try to choose the css attributes, font size or javascript functions that run inside an app in iOS for example to see how misguided your view of choice is.
- superkuh 3y ago
  >you can not specify what content that URL provides. You've always been able to change how the content that was sent is displayed. And browsers literally shipped with HTML editors in them for decades. What do you think night mode is in a browser? Reader mode? Etc. It has always been a thing that browsers changed what they displayed. But now for-profit interests and those who's livelyhood depends on them are trying to re-write history. Mostly so they can force attestation and be sure their spying and ads work. Don't be part of it.
  - cowl 3y ago
    > You've always been able to change how the content that was sent is displayed No, you have ever been able to change what the content owner has sent as changable content. Browsers allow you to change a subset of the content. You can not change how a video playsback. you can not change a gif is rendered etc. If the content owner prefers it can provide you all content as an image as many "document" sites do to even prevent you from selecting the text let alone controling how it's displayed or even if it's displayed. This is a contract; they provide a content that you either consume or not. Especially Youtube, you have a choice, free with ads or payed without ads. When there was not payment option everyone was screeming "I am ready to pay just turn off the ads". well now you can. If you don't like either option don't use the site. noone owns you free content with your rules. free content comes with their rules. You can't be cheap and chosy.
    - superkuh 3y ago
      >If you don't like either option don't use the site. I feel the same way about the entitled behavior of Youtube and other corporations. If they don't want videos to be public then put them all behind the W3C approved black box DRM and lose any false pretense of being an open video site. They can't pretend to be open and then throw around their money/legal power to try and tell me my computer is theirs anyway. They don't get to chose what I can do on my computer unless I opt in to it by enabling EME DRM. They're the weird ones doing weird stuff. 99% of the web does not claim it owns my computer and the nature of how EME DRM is implemented in standards compliant browsers reflects that. My behavior and way of displaying the website is standards compliant and completely legal. Google is the one trying to work around standards and existing regulatory frameworks that already solved this by using threats and disingenuous framing of the issue.
ahahahahah 3y ago
> That's not what's happening. If I don't want to execute the code someone else sent me I don't have to. It's ignorant lawyer-think to believe otherwise. That's not happening. They aren't forcing you to do shit. Like do you imagine that they are taking you to court because you aren't watching their ads? No, of course not. They are offering you an agreement, they will send you their data that you wanted only if you'll also watch ads. You are free to decline. I'm general, most of the governments of the world have said it would be illegal for you to find technical workarounds to get their content outside of that agreement, but of course not even that is them forcing you to do anything.

konschubert 3y ago

And they can choose not to send you their data.

superkuh 3y ago
Right. They already have the solution in the form of the black box DRM "Encrypted Media Extensions". I have intentionally turned off support for this in my browsers so I cannot view "live" streams and commercial media on youtube. Seems like it's working fine. If youtube wants to stop acting like a free video host for non-corporate humans it's certainly going to drive down the traffic. It'd break 15 years of precedent and usage. I don't think they'll do this. Instead they'll just keep pressuring for absurd legal interpretations, threatening the technologically ignorant, and only buy district attorneys to enforce their absurd legal perspectives when someone technical rocks the boat.

readthenotes1 3y ago

Print ads and TV commercials never unexpectedly did something that lingered.

cowl 3y ago

you request an URL, you can not specify what content that URL provides. This is not a new precedent or perspective. It's how Internet works. You can choose what the content owner chooses to let you choose. Try to choose the css attributes, font size or javascript functions that run inside an app in iOS for example to see how misguided your view of choice is.

superkuh 3y ago
>you can not specify what content that URL provides. You've always been able to change how the content that was sent is displayed. And browsers literally shipped with HTML editors in them for decades. What do you think night mode is in a browser? Reader mode? Etc. It has always been a thing that browsers changed what they displayed. But now for-profit interests and those who's livelyhood depends on them are trying to re-write history. Mostly so they can force attestation and be sure their spying and ads work. Don't be part of it.
- cowl 3y ago
  > You've always been able to change how the content that was sent is displayed No, you have ever been able to change what the content owner has sent as changable content. Browsers allow you to change a subset of the content. You can not change how a video playsback. you can not change a gif is rendered etc. If the content owner prefers it can provide you all content as an image as many "document" sites do to even prevent you from selecting the text let alone controling how it's displayed or even if it's displayed. This is a contract; they provide a content that you either consume or not. Especially Youtube, you have a choice, free with ads or payed without ads. When there was not payment option everyone was screeming "I am ready to pay just turn off the ads". well now you can. If you don't like either option don't use the site. noone owns you free content with your rules. free content comes with their rules. You can't be cheap and chosy.
  - superkuh 3y ago
    >If you don't like either option don't use the site. I feel the same way about the entitled behavior of Youtube and other corporations. If they don't want videos to be public then put them all behind the W3C approved black box DRM and lose any false pretense of being an open video site. They can't pretend to be open and then throw around their money/legal power to try and tell me my computer is theirs anyway. They don't get to chose what I can do on my computer unless I opt in to it by enabling EME DRM. They're the weird ones doing weird stuff. 99% of the web does not claim it owns my computer and the nature of how EME DRM is implemented in standards compliant browsers reflects that. My behavior and way of displaying the website is standards compliant and completely legal. Google is the one trying to work around standards and existing regulatory frameworks that already solved this by using threats and disingenuous framing of the issue.

ahahahahah 3y ago

> That's not what's happening. If I don't want to execute the code someone else sent me I don't have to. It's ignorant lawyer-think to believe otherwise. That's not happening. They aren't forcing you to do shit. Like do you imagine that they are taking you to court because you aren't watching their ads? No, of course not. They are offering you an agreement, they will send you their data that you wanted only if you'll also watch ads. You are free to decline. I'm general, most of the governments of the world have said it would be illegal for you to find technical workarounds to get their content outside of that agreement, but of course not even that is them forcing you to do anything.