Attacks and doxing make me personally MORE likely to support stronger safety features in chromium, as such acts increase my suspicion that there is significant intimidation from criminals who are afraid this feature will disrupt their illegal and/or unethical businesses, and I don’t give in to criminals or bullies

Kick a puppy
Get attacked for kicking a puppy
“These attacks make me MORE likely to keep kicking puppies, as I don’t give in to intimidation from criminals and bullies that want healthy puppies for their nefarious ends.”

  • Haui@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    126
    ·
    1 year ago

    Quick correction: website scraping and ad blocking is not unlawful. It both is a means to make the web more accessible and the latter also reduces CO2 emission through reducing electricity usage from irrelevant ads. The same case could be made for web scraping as a user can make their own feed of news without having to sift through hundreds of pages. This as well can be done in a way that does not disrupt the pages‘ normal function.

    That is where the two larger issues come in:

    • people can argue that you need to pay for viewing a page/getting information through apps And
    • branding powerusers as criminals („unlawful“) is unfair and false

    The „pay for information“ is largely a phylosophical problem. It is no problem to pay for someones book or online course but the blanket statement that one has to pay for it is false. As an open source developer I give my work freely to others and in turn receive theirs freely as well (if they use the appropriate license of course).

    We really have two sides forming. The „open internet“ crowd that works together for free or maybe accepts donations and the proprietary crowd which is having a huge influence right now.

    Google putting in web DRM will cement that situation and make it possible that you can only use vanilla stuff on your browser and ultimately even shutting down any access to open source things completely by making it impossible to run on ubuntu since google will only accept windows clients (this is a possible outcome, not a guaranteed one).

    All in all, we are unable to perfectly anticipate the outcome of this but if we see great harming potential, it is fair to weigh it agains the potential benefits (which is the lofty goal of weeding out bots and scammers). I think the cost benefit relation is heavily tilted here.

    TL;DR: Tinkering with your browser is not illegal and should be allowed to continue. The cost of (potentially) weeding out bots and scammers is not worth potentially ruining the open source community.

    • Phoebe@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      1 year ago

      I work with cultural heritage and have the strong believe, that information should be open and easy accessible. Citizen have a right to access to knowledge and to educate themselves unter their circumstanses. But of course the Infrastructur cost money and this should always be a discurse between all parties. And not been dictated by major companies.

      It is a really hard fight for museums, archives and libaries lately. What do you do when your electricity bill jumps up to 5 million during the war in the ukrain?

      We need to unite and search for ways to keep the Internet accessible.

      • Haui@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        I can relate. People like you are the structural pillars of our society.

        I‘m not familiar to the laws concerning cultural heritage but some of the museums should be partially tax funded, no?

        • Phoebe@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thanks 😊

          Mostly you are right, of course it depence on the country. a lot of institutes are tax funded, but the cost can’t be covered just with that. Rent, wages, special rooms for the heritage… the new competitor is everything digital: a homepage, a database, social media. Museums need all of that to stay relevant. but the budget stays the same.

          (And of course we depent on open data, to reduce thr dependence on big tech companies)

          The war has shown how fragile this is. Cost of electricity had boomt, but there is no room to reduce it. Paintings, glas, it all needs their own temperature. But explain that to someone who is just Management. We scientist/ academics have a weak basis for negotiation, when the administration wants to save money. In my country cultural heritage is clearly not a priority, that leads to institutes having no money and losing relevance. Which is dangerous for the variety of knowledge.

          Thanks for giving me the space to shortly explain this. I think we all need to work together to make the web, the heritage accessible! 😤

          • Haui@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure. You‘re welcome.

            It’s heartbreaking how humanity treats its heritage especially given the extreme advancements of the last 100 yrs.

            If you feel like your country does not do enough, consider writing letters to your local politicians and explain the situation. Often, people overestimate the amount effort it takes to make a difference with humans.

            Good luck.

    • TehPers@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Doesn’t Google scrape websites? Isn’t that the entire purpose of google.com? If that were illegal, then Google would be the biggest offender. The author should probably look where he’s pointing his gun before firing it.

      • Haui@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It sounds like the author is getting their points mixed up. It is not unlawful to scrape websites but google kind of makes it look that way which is inherently bad. There’s no two ways about this. Google needs to step back from this.