4 ms·
It was inevitable. The internet was a new (un)natural resource, beautiful and useful for what it was, but all that capitalism inevitably saw it as was a space t
by Llamamoe 2y ago
It was inevitable. The internet was a new (un)natural resource, beautiful and useful for what it was, but all that capitalism inevitably saw it as was a space to make money.
And so, once more, the commons were pissed on and filled with information warfare against consumer minds.
- Terr_ 2y ago> information warfare against consumer minds. Random quixotic idea: The Constitutional Right To Mental Filtering. (Cannot be signed away through contract.) So you can't be sued for using blocking software for ads or disliked material, and working around technical roadblocks to that end would be protected. Not just in a browser, but also using a VR headset to hide ads as you walk around. In the meantime, there's an interesting-but-unusual interpretation of Section 230 [0] that occupies similar legal territory. [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/05/professor-sues-meta-to-allow-release-of-feed-killing-tool-for-facebook/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/05/professor-sues-m...
- _heimdall 2y agoHas anyone actually been suedfor personally using blocking software or similar? I could see a company having gone after a company behind blocking software, but suing the user seems suprising.
- Terr_ 2y agoVery Big Company threatened it, anyway. [0] Even when an "impossible" lawsuit may not succeed, they can effectively harm victims when there is no quick/easy/cheap way to get it dismissed and have the attacker pay a cost for harassment. (Which is why anti-SLAPP laws are important. [1]) [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28801908 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28801908 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...