2. Even though SafetyNet may not be as annoying as something like UAC, it still has deep reaching effects[1] since now the standards are proprietary and nobody can make an actual good UI alternative to the garbage dog-slow banking app.
The irony is your stale rhetoric only applies the other way: Users who were saved by "risk analysis" and firewall type systems don't know they were saved and don't care.
1. I assume this attestation is checked on the app's server - I assume Google signs their attestation that your device is "good" and this is verifiable by the server of the banking app. Otherwise the in app checks could just be nopped.
False. You just want to meta-complain. c0l0 has pointed out how Google(R) MoronNet(TM) in practice usually negates any benefit gained from how virtuous their kernel maintenance process is.
>people are killing themselves because of instagram
Literally every social issue on the web for the last 20 years follows this one simple formula:
> X causes Y. Yes it sounds stupid, but read this long winded reasoning or spend the next 70 hours of your life going down my trail of studies to back this up
And nobody actually invests their lives in rebuking them, and they get bored and stop talking about it 5 years later.
This only works for so long until the devs get tired of spoonfeeding. More importantly: There shouldn't be subtle nuances in something like a web routing library which is _supposed_ to be trivial. Just the other day I had the experience of watching a grown man give a presentation on his beloved HTTP library, explaining fundamentals of asynchronous (TM) programming and syntax as if the audience does not understand their own programming language in 2021, after seeing the previous 500 LangX.FrameworkY.HTTPlibs. This shouldn't be a thing. We shouldn't be relearning basic shit every day. The problem aside from UNIX being a giant pile of garbage, and HTTP being utterly pointless (can you even name what problem is being solved when you create a new p2p application and make them talk HTTP to each other?), is that everyone keeps making their new languages and libs to "fix" one tiny issue, and they _always_ lack basic knowledge of the past 50 years of PL history, such as Standard ML which is better than whatever they just came up with.
> 1 - mandate disclaimers in front of all videos describing the possible negative effects of porn
Why would you think this will work? My parents, school, etc already gave you a million false warnings about porn and yet I looked at it. Did that even work for smoking? I think smoking only stopped once vape replaced it. Now I have to skip the intro logo as well as some stupid disclaimer, and producers have to waste more of their time on legal checkboxes, great.
> 2 - hold video hosting sites liable if content is shown to minors.
That's not a concrete plan. Do we need photo ID here? Some experimental crypto to disclose your government certified age to the website so it can decide not to kick you off? What about a forum where anyone can post any image? Does the forum have to be legally liable to block minors if it has no rule against porn?
The internet worked perfect in 2000. I got my porn when I was 13 and had no problem. There was not a single complaint aside from corporate scum trying to enforce DMCA crap (the multi billion dollar company was complaining, nobody else). Only when all you American idiots came in 2010 from faceberg all these pretend social problems started existing. The internet is literally just data transmission and this act could not be more harmless if you wanted it to be. Quite literally, the internet is the most harmless technology in existence. It cannot give you any disease, etc. It costs nothing, etc. What we are seeing here is the American art of being a professional victim. One should start by observing that almost every single complaint about the internet starts with "I read some text and now I am offended".
I envision the internet as community run, and free. The current internet is all obsolete garbage. The problem is, on this new internet we wont actually be able to make it because everything will be illegal by then. It will be illegal to run point to point to your neighbour because of some stupid porno law that has absolutely nothing to do with your application.
How does this have 2.5K upvotes when every single HN related project needs JS and a quad core CPU (for the browser to open a blank page) to view a paragraph of text?
Look pal, the internet is a tool for exchanging information. Just like the air is a medium for talking in real life. Any sort of legislation like "oh no, you need a XCORP(R) CERTIFIED CHECKBOX(TM)" is just getting in the way and forcing us to use some moron's garbage tech, much like a website requiring SMS pins to log in. When I was 13 and got porn it was by p2p programs. I sure as hell don't want to go back in time and have them already banned and gimped in 2000.
> This is a hyperbolic statement. Even if you are just talking about internet regulation.
It was intended hyperbole, but it's also mostly right. Rules are for fools.
> This is an extreme example but it illustrates a point.
An extreme imaginary example is needed because the internet is harmless.
> You can say the same thing about websites that prey on children, or the elderly.
There's no such thing. That is an American myth. They are a bunch of muppets who tell stories to each other about how a new type of monster ate their cookies. I'm not even exaggerating. It's an American passtime to think up new "injustices" to be solved.
I watch porn too, staring at 13, and never had a problem because I've always been healthy in general. Sex feels good even alone. It's not likely to cause physical health problems any more than any other physical activity. All those people on NoFap are losers coping by blaming their problems on some specific thing. Society is full of losers, it's not hard to find thousands of them to go on a dedicated forum to circlejerk each other.
> I'm not going to touch any of the other subjects you raised because I'm not arguing for any of the things you listed.
It was targeted toward HN in general anyway. I'm really sick of this place full of corporate drones trying to appeal to "the people".
No, nothing needs regulation. Stop making the internet fucking worse. Can we go back to 2000 now (not that it was good then either since the internet was fundamentally broken already)? This is like the bat shit insane morons who think having a popup about cookies on every page is solving the """privacy""" issue.
Literally every single political issue on HN is bogus. Take the ad blocking issue for instance, nothing that has ads actually matters. Your "solutions" like Brave are pure garbage.
The "privacy" issue doesn't exist because if we were using sane tech instead of webshit, there wouldn't be any tracking since it wouldn't be conceptually possible. Why the hell can tech even track you in the first place for reading static documents? This is a poor analog that cannot even compete with paper newspapers (which are also much more legible because they are not on LCDs).
Net neutrality doesn't matter because nobody can ELI5 why I should care about it. Since the internet is all garbage, it shouldn't be an issue that it's expensive. Just don't use it. Make a free replacement. Cuban citizens have already done it.
Now let me try and list CURRENT_YEAR.addictions:
- Games
- Working out
- Porn
- Social media
- TV (youtube or whatever you use now)
- HN (muh dunning kruger syndrome, imposter, et al)
- Eating
- Lotto tickets
- Stock market
- Programming
- Working
- Drugs
- Things that are sort of drugs but not
- Any substance what so ever
- Benchmarking
- Politics
- Literally any hobby
Oh look guys, HN needs to be regulated because I can come up with a person who has problems because of it.
Guys we need to regulate fat and high calorie food. Oh wait it grows on trees.
People who see a problem and immediately go "we need regulation to solve this" (and even proceed to come up with some ad-hoc hypothesis of how it solves the problem after it's proven that it doesn't solve it in a substantial way) are morons. There is actually something wrong with their brain. They hold back progress. Every new law is a potential stumbling block for progress and thus why new legislation should be avoided at all costs. See MECHANISM NOT POLICY article on wikipedia to see how people already knew about this 70 years ago in tech.
To take this one step further: Adding surprise semantics like capturing time (and the dev not being aware of it) will lead to security vulnerabilities (side channels because the code is essentially timestamping when various parts of the code are hit) as well as privacy issues (PII leaking, clock skew leaking, whatever).
My thesis is that computers are so full of unwanted unneeded things like this that there is no engineer who knows them all as well as having a good understanding software engineering as well as infosec. Most vulnerabilities are due to lack of understanding how the primitives work, as opposed to flaws in reasoning (the former is clearly distinct: the summary provided to save him from spending a month looking at the implementation is inadequate).
I have designed UUIDs myself and they are simply a long random bitstring. The random part is already necessary because we need sufficient randomness for crypto to work in the first place. IETF likes to "engineer" things.
> No, it isn't. It's a private company determining how and who it conducts business with. Being a 'patrician' of your own property is completely fine and in fact a basic right, and if you don't like Mailchimp's content policies, go to a competitor.
Correct. They can do what they want. However, the title of the article is still correct.
It's really cringe. I feel like we'd all be on something like Freenet right now not giving a shit about some company's web hosting server if Napster wasn't intervened.
This title is a good way of phrasing a piece of common sense people have been trying to get rid of.
Also similar: "Mechanism not policy"
> It is almost impossible to envision all of the different ways in which a system might be used by different types of users over the life of the product. This means that any hard-coded policies are likely to be inadequate or inappropriate for some (or perhaps even most) potential users.
The most annoying thing is that everyone denouncing Apple's action still agree that "CSAM" is a problem that needs action by technology companies (and thus decentralized stuff should be illegal). While "CSAM" is a problem, just like any crime, it's completely overblown and much more rare than they pretend it is. NO. The internet doesn't need regulation. Never.
- Most instances of "child abuse" involve something that matches the legal term, but involves teenagers and is almost certainly not abuse
- Lots of conservatives want to punish said teens and anyone involved for sexuality and go along with the sophistry of calling people abuse victims when they have consensual sex or post their nude photos online
- Naturally, there is no incentive to look at naked 5 year olds, because that's not how the human body works. This is an edge case and is what the media makes out to be the norm
Stop pretending to have a "mature perspective". Companies should literally never touch your data unless there is a search warrant. Now that I read this article I'm concerned about what WhatsApp is doing.
1. Anti-user mechanisms (SafetyNet) annoy users.
2. Even though SafetyNet may not be as annoying as something like UAC, it still has deep reaching effects[1] since now the standards are proprietary and nobody can make an actual good UI alternative to the garbage dog-slow banking app.
The irony is your stale rhetoric only applies the other way: Users who were saved by "risk analysis" and firewall type systems don't know they were saved and don't care.
1. I assume this attestation is checked on the app's server - I assume Google signs their attestation that your device is "good" and this is verifiable by the server of the banking app. Otherwise the in app checks could just be nopped.