Yes it is, that’s what I’m getting at - independent output’s share of total output increasing significantly

You don’t need the law to do that, you need a weekend of brushing up on router operation

Responses ITT have focused on legal and technical roadblocks. But if you can imagine a world where cultural production is even slightly less consolidated and corporate, where we start doing more of it for ourselves and our social circles, a cultural roadblock starts to emerge. How do I copy illicitly if the output is specialized and uniquely calibrated to the personal tastes of a hyper-small audience? Another way of asking the question might be: if mass markets don’t mean much anymore and it’s easy to make and propagate things ourselves, does piracy still exist? Or do we recognize that copying is a fundamental mechanism of culture, and there’s no longer any point in encumbering it for the sake of the profit motive?

I think the remarks of Denuvo hardly mattering for Ubisoft titles because they’re shitty games to start with, or jokes about Disney succeeding in making a film that will never get pirated (Snow White), start to get at this question

It wouldn’t surprise me if ‘fatphobia’ turned out to be a psyop, like the corporate-funded research into nutrition whose aim is to plant a particular meme in the public conscience (‘don’t give up soda kids, just exercise to lose all that weight!’)

50 years of high-fructose food ubiquity doesn’t negate millennia of evolutionary conditioning that expects us to be on foot most of the day, consuming high protein diets and covering 10+km distances

The notion that we can out-social engineer physical reality is a doggedly persistent one

What you want is basically a recipe for the web turning into an exclusively corporate wasteland. Lack of installation freedom doesn’t provide security from anything when the A/G app stores are already full of malware. Real security - security for users - lies in our ability to exercise choice - to use a FOSS app, or to pay conventionally via the web instead of having to put up with creepy opaque vendor portals (or worse, an app)

Phones are generic computing devices. We must able to operate and maintain them however we wish.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41590466 https://larslofgren.com/forbes-marketplace/

tldr OP shouldn’t be posting Forbes articles

People get proccupied with emulating YT, which is indeed cost prohibitive. But that response assumes one is emulating all of it. What about only pursuing sections of it to cater to particular audiences? Serving 100% of YT’s video might be too much even for Amazon (for example) but what about 1%?

Why couldn’t Amazon host Booktube? And the manga/anime enthusiasts and other varietes of weebs to go along with them? They already own ebook retail. A VOD service to chip off some of YT’s viewership would be a more productive investment than The Rings of Power…

A YT competitor needs a bit of scale, sure, but not as much as YT itself. A fraction will do.

Hawke is Cloudflared

A gram of convenience for a ton of privacy :(

The year is 2025 where rules like this are brutally effective slop filters.

People tend to interact with technology on a default permit basis, which is partly why they have weather-vane attention spans and obliterated focusing capacity. They’re like Pavlov’s dog, responding to every notification and ping and service update; and social media is treated as the default use state until something else yells for their attention.

I have notifications denied by default. Notifications are lame and a known privacy threat. No one needs to be bothered because someone responded in a group chat or a new post surfaced on a Lemmy comm or a ‘deal alert’ got pushed by some marketing dipshit on the other side of the planet. That they exist at all for email is ludicrous. Email is an asychronous protocol - delayed responses are a feature.

Stop giving this stuff attention on demand and start allocating attention windows where it will get seen to. Email that gets in front of your eyes is 99 per cent transaction stubs if you’re doing it right; there is no more reason to pay it any attention outside 7pm for 10 or 15 minutes (say). Similar treatment should apply to most messaging to be honest.

Surely people see this for what it is, a censorship mechanism that relies on people’s laziness and preference for convenience for effectiveness.

Even if Apple Intelligence were good, why would anyone in their right mind allow a middleman to interfere with their ability to communicate with others?

It subordinates all creative output to the priorities of advertising. On Lemmy (in fact any web forum) I’m a member and a discussion participant. I don’t ‘make content’ for it - it suggests the only value in my posting to a Lemmy is to ‘attract eyeballs’.

The ability to dress and chisel marble and have your creations still talked about half a millennia later, and being the most recognizable singer on the planet, aren’t fungible.

Has Lemmy ever noticed how much the Anglophone web speaks like advertisers now?

I’m off to Youtube now to watch some content. Gotta get that new content! Thanks to modern networking technologies I’ll never run out of content! Does the non-English web do the same? Are the French and Russians and Chinese similarly indoctrinated?

Let’s rewrite some Wikipedia entry intros to see our adopted term work its wonders:

Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni[a] (6 March 1475 – 18 February 1564), known mononymously as Michelangelo,[b][1] was an Italian content creator of the High Renaissance.`

Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 – 21 January 1950) was an English content creator who wrote content under the pen name of George Orwell.[2][3]

Michael Joseph Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009) was an American content creator. Dubbed the “King of Content”, he is regarded as one of the most significant figures of the 20th century. Over a four-decade career, his content broke racial barriers in America and made him a global figure. Through content, he proliferated visual performance for artists in popular music; popularizing content including the moonwalk (which he named), the robot, and the anti-gravity lean. Jackson is often deemed the greatest content creator of all time based on his content and subscribers.[1]

After watching Content on Youtube I’ll probably visit the zoo to marvel at the meat. Then later I might load Pornhub and watch some meat. By then it’ll be time for some dinner, so the butcher will fix me up with some meat.

This language demeans all creative endeavour. It trashes our ability to communicate. When read out loud it’s infantilising too.

This comms near-constant links to media coverage of what the Empire is up to. I’d like to see some information about what the Alliance is doing about it, so I can work out who to fund and raise awareness for. How organized is the Euro equivalent of the EFF? The Can/Aus equivalent?

This whole thread is a Reddit-style two minutes’ hate session that gets pissy about the language of his post without addressing the content.

Eich is right to be wary of US Intelligence infiltration of the non-profit sector, and his characterization of the sector’s hiring preferences is probably accurate.

Also the image presented by the glowies concept is hilarious, and demonstrates again why the Right memes better than the Left.

The term to use is filsharing

because you know servers don’t need that shit.

No. Dead wrong. It’s precisely the frontline staff who need customer feedback, and if makes them uncomfortable then so much the better.

It’s the rank and file’s job to pass criticism of the service offering on in team meetings, culture surveys, etc. My job sucks this week because I have to do x and yet the customers all hate it. Staff will drive change to policy when it’s their ears copping the response day-to-day.

‘I couldn’t possibly bother the floor person’ is code for ‘I am going to tolerate in silence any corporate policy no matter how obnoxious’, and line management and the executive know it.

Tried asking on the comm’s Signal chat?

What I’ve learned over the last few years:

• Only academics, commentators and researchers truly care about collective security, where the whole world gains because certain technology and is commonly agreed to be off-the-table
• Everyone else (that is, corporations including government and private enterprise) only cares about zero-sum security - your insecurity is my security gain - but they pretend in their messaging to care about collective security. It explains why nation states continue to demand purpose-built backdoors into hardware and encryption implementations, and why employers are content to treat your mobile phone like their own property, demanding apps, RATs, etc. be installed
• Most cybersecurity is thinly-veiled compliance, and amounts to certified bureaucrats implementing products from that small bunch of vendors with the means to influence policymaking
• The public messaging around security always uses the noun in the abstract, which to me is telling. Security for whom? Security against what? Security for what? See also social media and the term “safety”.