

It’s certainly not bad. I didn’t mean to sound critical. I just wanted to point out that it very much exists. Even Meta offers e2ee, and, I think, faced some legal criticism.
It’s certainly not bad. I didn’t mean to sound critical. I just wanted to point out that it very much exists. Even Meta offers e2ee, and, I think, faced some legal criticism.
Here’s an unpopular opinion: This won’t happen because the policymakers don’t want it to happen. It’s fundamentally opposed to what they want. And I’m not spinning some conspiracy tale here. Listen…
The debate involves many ambiguous terms that people like him interpret one way but which actually mean something entirely different. The correct understanding is ultimately the legal definition. That’s the one that determines if armed people (ie the police) will come and take away your computer.
the AT Protocol allows users to own their data
To a copyright person, this would mean functioning DRM. It means complete control over what happens to their content, regardless of where and how it is stored. They have the law on their side and the policymakers. Mind that the media is part of the copyright industry and they have outsize influence over public opinion. As far as they are concerned, the problem with Big Tech is that they are not paid enough for their rights.
Many people on Lemmy feel the same way about GDPR. Unfortunately, Lemmy’s hive mind is dominated by misconception about GDPR. But it is true that it is far-reaching and would be well served by the same perfect DRM of which copyright people dream.
The ideal European internet is one that has DRM built-in from the bottom so that everyone can exercise their legal rights under copyright law, the GDPR, the data act, and possibly others.
A freewheeling federated network is legally problematic. Even insofar that it is legal, it is fundamentally opposed to what policymakers and much of the public want. Free speech is an American value and emphatically not European.
If you don’t believe me, you can look at tax-funded projects like Gaia-X and then imagine what the social media equivalent looks like.
People i haven’t met should not be able to see anything I post, even if we share friends. I’d make it so you’d have to connect with NFC or something before they could see your stuff.
Sounds like you want an E2E encrypted group chat rather than social media.
What you mean by “connect with NFC”? Like meet in person to connect?
And also, PSA:
LVMH is owned by Bernard Arnault, the richest man in Europe and the 5th richest in the world, according to Forbes. In many years, he was the richest, ahead of the American tech founders.
I know many people have been bamboozled into thinking that Europe doesn’t have oligarchs. Well, now you know.
I believe that no one should be as rich as the people who top the Forbes 500. But many people on the list have made their wealth through a reasonable contribution to human progress. EG making a well-functioning search engine as Google used to be was a laudable achievement. Luxury clothes are purely extractive.
I know what you mean. Apparently, finance people use “bazooka” to mean radical, drastic measures of any kind. I don’t know any finance people, but I’ve also seen the term used in relation to central bank policy.
The ACI really does include some very serious stuff. It’s not just for ordinary trade disputes but for, basically, economic war.
What wording do you mean? “Trade bazooka” is actually an established nickname.
The idea is that companies are bartering service for data. That would mean that they would have to pay VAT, just as if money had been exchanged. Seems pretty stupid. I doubt it will go anywhere.
Of course, the GDPR does turn personal data into a kind of intellectual property. It seems to be the general mood in the EU to turn all data into intellectual property. I wish I knew why such neo-feudal ideas are on the rise.
Another link (Germany’s state funded foreign news broadcaster):
This is closer to the idea: https://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-Micropayment-Markup-19990825/
Clickbait is one of the bigger problems on the net. I don’t want to pay for more of it.
I am much less opposed to being tracked than some people here. But the complete and unavoidable surveillance implied by such a scheme takes it a bit far.
Actually, given Lemmy’s usual knee-jerk reaction to tracking and commercialization, I can only assume that people aren’t thinking through this proposal.
It is. That’s the point. The surveillance is needed so that the children these pedophiles don’t get away with their crimes.
In Europe, conservatives are trying to push through surveillance laws to scan all images being sent over the internet to check if they show child porn. I do not think that people understand that they are basically looking for teens sharing their own nude selfies.
It’s complicated…
Some compare it to the surface of a balloon. Mark 2 points on the surface. When you blow it up, they will become further apart. A 2-dimensional creature on that surface would see their universe expanding.
That 2D creature would not be able to visualize the surrounding 3D world anymore than we are able to imagine more than 3 dimensions. It might dream of taking a short-cut to the other side of the balloon by building a bridge through the center. That’s the Sci-Fi fantasy of hyperspace travel.
Mind that scientists don’t believe that the universe is like a 3D balloon. A balloon has a closed surface. You can go round and get back to where you started. The universe is thought to be more like a flat rubber sheet being stretched where no one can see the edges.
You might now wonder what kind of high-dimensional space the universe exists in. But even that may be a completely wrong way to think about it. This universe is all we know and have ever experienced. Worse. We evolved in it. We are absolutely constrained.
Let’s take a little detour through Einstein’s relativity. Imagine a spaceship travelling at close to the speed of light. It flashes its headlights. The light moves on ahead of the ship at, of course, the speed of light.
So here’s the thing to break your mind:
You look at this from the outside. You see the ship moving at close to the speed of light and the flash slowly gaining distance. The ship is almost as fast as the light, right?
You look at this from the inside. You see the flash of light moving ahead at… the speed of light. You don’t see it moving just a little faster than your own spaceship.
Everyone, everywhere, always sees light moving at the speed of light. The person in the spaceship sees the flash moving away at the speed of light. The person outside, at relative rest, sees the distance between the flash and the ship increasing only slowly.
How can this work? Well, time needs to pass slower on the spaceship relative to somewhere at relative rest. That’s what time is relative means. There are more things that need to give way, like space/distances.
Intuitively, we think of time and space as absolutes but it is not so. Light is an electromagnetic wave. So we might think that it behaves like a soundwave or an ocean wave. Not so. The speed of light is fundamental and time and space are built on it.
Actually, the speed of light is the speed at which electromagnetic phenomena spread. We believe it is the general top speed of things happening in the universe. When you move a magnet, then the magnetic field around it moves. But this movement spreads only at the speed of light. The gravitational field around it also moves, but also only with a delay given by the speed of light.
Let’s go back closer to home. Everything consists of atoms. Atoms have a positively charged nucleus and a negatively charged shell of electrons. What keeps the nucleus and shell together is electromagnetism. The reason you can’t walk through walls is that equal charges repel. Electromagnetism is how our reality is solid.
We intuitively think of everything as space with stuff in it. But that is a playing field created by electromagnetism and a bunch of other things.
This view obviously starts breaking down when we go away from what we are used to. At large scales and high speeds, you have to think in terms of relativity. At very small scales, it gets quantum. Stuff only has a location, speed, or other properties in interaction with other stuff.
Quantum theory and relativity contradict each other, but also are completely accurate as far as anyone can measure. The conditions where they’d contradict each other exist around a black hole or maybe at the beginning of the universe.
Let’s get back to the question…
You ever use a spray can for a while and notice that it gets cold? That’s how a fridge works. And also our universe.
When everything was closer together, the universe was hotter. About 13.8 billion years ago, it was white-hot glowing plasma. Plasma means that the atoms bump into each other so hard that they knock off the electron shells of each other. When there was enough room/the universe had cooled enough, this stopped.
The light of that is what we now see as the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). When that light started out, all those billions of years ago, it was quite close to us. But the universe expanded and so it had to travel a long way, eventually. The expansion of the universe also caused the wavelength to become larger. The wavelength expanded like any other length. So instead of light (nanometer wavelength) we now have microwave radiation (micrometer wavelength).
When we look out from earth, we don’t just see into the distance. We see into the past. That glowing plasma is opaque to light, so that’s as far back as we can see. It’s the edge of the observable universe, but it’s not a barrier to which you could travel. It’s in the past.
We assume, and it appears to be true, that the laws of nature and thus the speed of light, are the same everywhere. That means that the edge of the observable universe is a sphere around us.
As far as we can tell, every point in space expands equally. The CMBR comes uniformly from everywhere. We don’t know what this expansion means or why it happens. We only know that we can explain the observable universe with the Big Bang Theory. Maybe it’s just some fudge we are stuck with, because we can only think in terms of time and space.
Stupid human could’ve said thank you.
But the article later does back it up
The CEO of Cloudflare did not assert that. I was surprised that he would claim such a thing, and that should have made me read more carefully. Elon Musk notwithstanding, neither incompetence nor conspiracy theorizing are common at that level, publicly anyway.
You can believe whatever you like, of course. Freedom of opinion is nothing if not the right to be wrong.
It would be a lot to write, if you had to say what something does not do rather than what it does.
I looked at what the Cloudflare CEO said again. To be fair to him, he is not actually backing you up. He’s saying that Google makes no difference between the AI overview and the other search results. That is true. The AI overview is a search feature. I’m not sure why someone would want their link listed in search but not appear much more prominently in the AI overview.
Oh right. It’s Thursday. Hail Thor! Hail the Protector of Mankind!
You look up what Googlebot does. No AI.
You want to know what crawlers do AI? Just search for “AI”, or “training”, or some such, or skim through. It’s not long. Google-Extended collects training data. Note that Google-Extended is explicitly not used to rank pages.
Did that help?
Thanks for the reply. One thing that baffles me about Lemmy communities is how some contradictory opinions exist side by side without argument. Some praise the open nature of the Fediverse, while others call for the strictest rules on data sharing. Actually, I’m not really sure what the latter group does here.
One problem is that a solution isn’t obvious. The copyright industry hasn’t succeeded in making a truly effective DRM system. The missing link is lots of surveillance. You need to look for signs of tampering and then arrest people. It’s like with a burglary. Locked doors and windows can’t even stop an amateur for more than a few seconds. But maybe someone notices a window being broken. The world and Europe are moving in that direction but we are not nearly there.
An additional technical problem is that European data rights are complicated. You need to determine who has what rights in the data. AI may be very helpful here.
But the real problem is not technical. The Americans build services that people want to use. European policymakers don’t care if anyone wants to use it. The only concern is to make sure that the wrong use can be stopped. It’s enshittified by design.