[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/tech/ - Technology

"Technology reveals the active relation of man to nature"
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only

Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord


File: 1690679948149.png ( 37.4 KB , 828x851 , drmed.png )

 No.12341

Google wants to put DRM into the web, and lock everything into their chrome browser and make privacy violations even worse.

I think this is part of bigG's war on addblocking and of course they're a monopoly that wants to be the entire web. But there is more, web-advertising has been sort of dying a slow death for some time now. Not because of addblock but for other reasons. Neo-liberalism/capitalism is making people poor and that's shrinking the economic pie in general. If people see adds they ignore them more often. And there is of course the scheme for generating fake views for add-farming.

The drm googl wants to insert into the web is super terrible, if they can push this through it will destroy the web. There is no hyperbole here, the web will become like one of those locked down alternate versions of the internet from the 80s that failed so hard that barely anybody remembers that they even existed. It's possible that EU regulations against anti-competitive behavior, and monopoly-busting in the US could cock-block google, but it would be better to fight tooth and nail to kill this one in the crib, before it gets anywhere near that point. And then outlaw DRM for violating personal property (if you can't fully control your gadgets you've been expropriated)

If this monstrosity were to happen, it would probably take over 10 years to polish one of those decentralized peer to peer alternative web-protocols to the point where we get something like an open web back.

For more details see

The Linux Experiment
https://invidious.0011.lt/watch?v=Aj2s3DVSlHw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj2s3DVSlHw

Brodie Robertson
https://invidious.0011.lt/watch?v=tm3gH-ycykw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3gH-ycykw

Louis Rossmann
https://invidious.0011.lt/watch?v=0i0Ho-x7s_U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0i0Ho-x7s_U

Web Environment Integrity API Proposal
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36817305

This is probably somewhat related to the AI-web eating the web2.0 by scraping all it's content without generating any add-views/revenue.

The solution to this however is not drm-ing the web to death, but rather replacing the web2.0 web-page front-end interface with an AI interface. That way you can't just scrape an entire website. You're scrape-bot would have to send a bazillion queries to the AI interface. And the AI interface could of course be trained to tell scraping behavior from a normal human interaction and feed the scrape-bot a bunch of "AI-hallucinated" nonsense.

The AI interface would be trained on the content in the database of a website, and converse about a narrow range of topics based on the knowledge that you put into the back-end database. Of course there could be AI-adverts, in the form of the AI trying to work product suggestions into the conversations with users.

A key for making this economically viable is that a bunch of the processing for ai-pages is done on end-user hardware, which would need Machine-Learning Accelerator hardware, to be efficient and fast. Arm-socs for phones had this for a while, x86 desktop processors are somewhat behind on this and only the latest AMD processor already have dedicated MCA-cores. (dedicated gpu-pcie cards can do this too).

I'm not saying ai-adds should be the business model for this. Consider the add-revenue from a single page-view is a tiny fraction of a cent. If users could pay a fix sum of money into a pot and that gets distributed according to user page views, in a privacy respecting way, websites could make money without adds. I'm guessing here but if the average user were to spend 20 bucks a year, website operators would probably get more money than they do now with add-sense and co. Consider this proposal in the context of being limited by capitalism being utter dogshit in producing economic relations that work well with high-tech.

This AI-web would kill traditional web-crawlers/spiderbots (the thing that search engines use to index the web and give you search results). A new method of indexing AI-pages would need to be devised. This would probably be a technical problem google could solve, but they appear to be going into the polar-opposite direction.
>>

 No.12343

>>12341
>invidious.instance.somethingsomething.cum/watch?v=

bruh just use this
https://farside.link/invidious/watch?v=

it is checking online instances automatically and redirects all queries to the working ones. and it supports many other services too
https://sr.ht/~benbusby/farside/#about
>>

 No.12344

>>12343
Thanks for the tipp that seems to work well.
>>

 No.12389

>>12341
Apparently this shit is not dead yet. DRM is a type of malware, it burrows into the system like malware and does stuff the computer owner objects too, like malware. I'm not sure why these cartels get away with it, it negates the very concept of property. Your ownership of your computer is contingent on you controlling what it does. It's puzzling on an ideological level why the bourgeoisie would seek to negate property rights.

I get it there is a difference between personal property and private property, but if people don't get to experience personal property rights the legal construct of property will become a obscure legal technicality that nobody upholds. Socialists uphold personal property because that is necessary to justify public property, which in full socialism would be all the means of production. Capitalists used to do the same except they need it to justify private property. Are they being ideologically stupid ?

What will happen if they add this stuff to the web ? Will it die a slow death like Television ?
What will be the new open and free thing ?

https://farside.link/invidious/watch?v=5joNRJ3C5ho
>>

 No.12392

https://farside.link/invidious/watch?v=meWNtrZo5Mw
Here's a video about weaknesses in hardware drm

Will the final boss of digital spookiness get defeated ?
>>

 No.12438

Scientology is doing us a favor, they have attached their cultism-cringe to pro DRM legislation.
Now everybody that tries to argue for DRM can be accused of being in cahoots with the sect-crazies.

here's a Rossmann video about it.
https://farside.link/invidious/watch?v=2rQ62s87jvw

B.t.w. Scientology is declining, in the 1990s they peaked at 100k members and are now down to 20k.
>>

 No.12464

File: 1695274629861.jpg ( 11.9 KB , 350x350 , Slavery.jpg )

>>12392
>hardware drm
Does not exist. You mean "hardware-based restrictions", "locks", "copy protection", etc. DRM by definition is only about software. We must be careful with this slight-of-hand conflating DRM with other kinds of copy protection, because it's what DRM's worst apologists spin out to try and make DRM seem tolerable by contrast.
>>

 No.12465

>>12464
Sorry for conflating the two.

I haven't looked into the hardware side of things, i always thought that nobody would bother with that because once a "hardware-restriction" gets liberated, it'll stay that way forever.

Anyhow, suggest better names-for it.

Here's what i got: From a technical standpoint DRM behaves like malware and from a legal standpoint it's post-transactional expropriation.

What would you call the hardware shenanigans ?
>>

 No.12466

File: 1695370616370.jpeg ( 51.23 KB , 830x553 , stallman.jpeg )

>>12465
>What would you call the hardware shenanigans?
Hardware Restrictions Management? Physical Restrictions Management?

We should really get out ahead of the IP lawyers and come up with a good name that sticks and describes the injustice unambiguously, before they try to invent their own twisted Orwellian terminology to make the practice seem innocuous. Perhaps something that references rent, since these techniques are used to control what someone can do with their own property.
>>

 No.12470

>>12466
>since these techniques are used to control what someone can do with their own property.
Hm, this is kinda difficult to name:
Hardware based property infringement
Hostile hardware environment
Imprisoned hardware
Tainted hardware

>Perhaps something that references rent

This is even harder, perhaps:
Tollbooth hardware

Technically this would stop it from being a full Von-Neumann machine. So maybe it could be called
compute-incomplete hardware
>>

 No.12479

>>12438
It's interesting how the leftist brain works. You associate thing with "bad" people and that somehow makes the thing bad. Hitler was a big fan of consuming water and oxygen by the way, might want to stop consuming those bad things yourself comrade.

>>12464
>Does not exist. You mean "hardware-based restrictions", "locks", "copy protection", etc.
He obviously means hardware that prevents you breaking DRM like secure enclaves and efuses. Taking the most uncharitable interpretation of somebody's words and pretending that's what they really meant is such a slimy tactic.

>>12392
That's a decent video. I think he oversells it abit though, if the firmware is burned into ROM or cryptographically verified before execution then power glitching will not open up a permanent solution to anything.

The other thing to consider is that some middle class NPC who takes out a $100,000 loan to buy a Tesla is not going to risk his warranty to save $1000 on a DRM locked feature. And if the globalist billionaire class get their way then all cars will be $100,000 EVs that few people can afford to drive and even fewer people can afford to monkey with.
>>

 No.12493

>>12479
>It's interesting how the leftist brain works. You associate thing with "bad" people and that somehow makes the thing bad.
Not really, i think DRM is shit because on a technical level it's basically the same as malware, that fucks up your system. I know that it's intellectual dishonest and pure opportunism to link DRM to Scientology's cringe, but this is how DRM shills argue, and this presents an opportunity to throw some crazy shit back at them.

>if the firmware is burned into ROM or cryptographically verified before execution then power glitching will not open up a permanent solution to anything.

A special chip that works like a walled castle, which will definitely keep out the undesirables is a really old sales pitch, including all the invulnerability claims of this time we build the wall high enough. Don't count on it. In the long run people will probably move towards re-chipping with open chips that aren't locked down.

>And if the globalist billionaire class get their way then all cars will be $100,000 EVs that few people can afford to drive

Well if most people can't afford cars, we'll only need bus-lanes and bicycle lanes.

Unique IPs: 10

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome