It's just not worth it. the only thing keeping it alive is people being overly zealous over it. if the cost to implement is measured as '1', the cost to administer it is like '50'.
To start with it requires support v4 as a separate network, at least for internal networks, since many devices don't support ipv6 (I have several AP's, IoT devices,etc.. bought in recent years that are like that). Then the v4->v6 nat/gateway/proxy approaches don't work well for cases where reliability and performance are critical. You mentioned NAT, but lack of NAT means you have to configure firewall rules, many get a public ip by their ISP directly to the first device that connects to the ISP modem,exposing their device directly to the internet. Others need to do expose a lan service on devices (port forwarding) which is more painful with v6. DHCP works very simply, v6 addressing can be made simply too (especially with the v4 patterned addressing - forgot its name) but you have multiple types of v6 addresses, the only way to easily access resources with v6 is to use host names. with v4 you can just type an IP easily and access a resource. Same with troubleshooting, it's more painful because it is more complex, and it requires more learning by users, and if you have dual stack, that doesn't add to the management/admin burden, it multiplies it. It's easier to tcpdump and troubleshoot arp, dhcp and routing with v4 than it is ND,RA,anycast,linklocal,etc.. with v6.
For mobile connectivity, ipv4 works smoothly as well in my experience, but I don't know about your use case to form an opinion. I don't doubt IPv6 makes some things much easier to solve than ipv4. I am also not dismissing IPv6 as a pointless protocol, it does indeed solve lots of problems, but the problem it solves is largely for network administrators, even then you won't find a private network in a cloud provider with v6, for good reason too.
there keep arising more solutions, public ip usage hasn't been increasing as it did in past decades either. most new device increase is on mobile where cgnat works ok.
Eh. IPv6 is probably cheaper to run compared to running large scale CGNAT. It's well deployed in mobile and in areas without a lot of legacy IPv4 assignments. Most of the high traffic content networks support it, so if you're an eyeball network, you can shift costs away from CGNAT to IPv6. You still have to do both though.
Is it my favorite? No. Is it well supported? Not everywhere. Is it going to win, eventually? Probably, but maybe IPv8 will happen, in which case maybe they learn and it it has a 10 years to 50% of traffic instead of 30 years to 50% of traffic.
that's great, but when you have a networking issue, you have to deal with two stacks for troubleshooting. it would be much less effort to use just ipv4.
You're not paying for IPv4 addresses I'm sure, so did ipv6 solve anything for you? This is why i meant by zealots keeping it alive. you use ipv6 for the principle of it, but tech is suppose to solve problems, not facilitate ideologies.
But that's slow, and it's one more thing you have to setup and that could fail. What is the benefit to me if I used ipv6 and those nat services? what if I run into a service that blocks those nat IPs because they generate lots of noise/spam since they allow anyone to proxy through their IP? Not only does it not benefit me, if this was commercial activity I was engaging in, it could lead to serious loss of money.
At the risk of more downvotes, I again ask, why? am I supposed to endure all this trouble so that IPv4 is cheaper for some corporation? even then, we've hit the plateau as far as end user adaption goes. and I'll continue to argue that using IPv6 is a serious security risk, if you just flip it on and forget about it. you have to actually learn how it works, and secure it properly. These are precious minutes of people's lives we're talking about, for the sake of some techno ideology. The billions and billions spent on ipv4 and no one in 2026 is claiming ipv4 shortage will cause outages anytime within the next decade or two.
My suggestion is to come up with a solution that doesn't require any changes to the IP stack or layer3 by end users. CGNAT is one approach, but there are spare fields in the IPv4 Header that could be used to indicate some other address extension to ipv4 (not an entire freaking replacement of the stack), or just a minor addition/octet that will solve the problem for the next century or so by adding an "area code" like value (ASN?).
Hear me out: Web APIs need to devolve into... APIs. DOM needs to devolve into a UI API. We have PWA's, File System APIs, USB APIs, peripheral device APIs, all the things a native webui client would be doing.
Yes, it is "back to square one" , we already have websites masquerading as native apps via electron and tauri.
On the other end you have a handful of tech companies dictating how our computing experience should be because they control browsers.
WASM should be the bytecode format for executing untrusted code from the network and running a UI-capable application with controlled access to the system, that runs in a secure sandbox. This is java applets but better.
You have the same issue on mobile where regular websites create apps, so they can be persistent and have access to things they shouldn't, and be all naughty. This happens because somehow we treat "native" differently than "web". it should all be restricted like web apps are, sandboxed tightly, but given access to resources like any electron app would (but not your entire file system, or entire anything, ever!)
There shouldn't be any "installing" anything, perhaps bookmarking an app instead. I'm not saying let's do away with proper native apps, non-GUI apps still have a place, as do system services and extensions which are a whole other class of system applications. But your banking app isn't one of those, neither is a social media app, or a photo editor, a game, uber,etc.. all these can run in WASM, and WASM in turn gets native access to APIs similar to but not exactly web apis. I learned in that other comment thread that replicating the web DOM APIs for WASM is a foolish effort since it is all built with JS in mind. However, an HTML5 compatible DOM layer, that is distinct from DOM-manipulation layers, and has a low-level styling layer (not a best like CSS, but something CSS can be compiled into, or that WASM styling code would natively compile into).
You will still need something to run the WASM like browsers do today, but here is the biggest value of my proposal: Unlike browsers, this would be heavily standardized, and as far as how your WASM renders and manipulates the DOM, that would be extremely consistent across WASM browsers, mainly because it would be so low-level there won't be any opinionated subjective interpretations between host apps. Unlike JS, there won't be any script runtime, unlike CSS, there is no styling engine. The responsibility of a beast like V8 is divided so that DOM, styling,security and API interactions are strongly defined in bytecode/ABI by the standard for the WASM host/browser, the actual UI of the app (tabs, themes, extensions,bookmarks, history,etc..) would not be different between WASM host/browsers, and of course the app's logic would be defined in whatever language, which will be compiled into WASM bytecode compatible with the aforementioned standard. This should result in consistent UI, fully networked apps with controlled resource access, that run ephemerally (caching as desired), storing persistent data as needed (no software updates per-app).
It is a lot of effort but consider the state of computing, between mobile apps, things like flatpak, electron, tauri, "vendoring", PWA apps, bloated chat apps like slack, teams, element, discord, web framework mess,etc.. is this the chaos we want to leave the next generation?
It might take a long time, but isn't it good to "build trees under whose shade you'll never sit"?
No, in the sense that he people who set oil prices and government policy alike can trade in those prediction markets. I'm all for the markets, very democratic and libertarian (not that I'm one), but policy makers, executives and other people from whom a conflict of interest by a prediction market translates into disaster for real people should be restricted from participating in these markets.
In this case however you can pretty much do the same thing with other financial instruments like future contract on oil. Either way, I agree decision makers shouldn't be allowed to trade (and I think are forbidden in most countries).
You can do the same with proper financial instruments, but there are insider trading laws that prevent those people with insider knowledge from profiting, but these markets have no such restrictions.
This is going to be a tough ask. I am with this 100% for "ai generated" but not "ai edited". What if I'm using AI for spellchecking or correcting bad grammar? what if it is an accessiblity-related use case? or translation?
It's just a tool ffs! there are many issues with LLM abuse, but this sort of over-compensation is exactly the sort of stuff that makes it hard to get abuse under control.
You're still talking with a human!, there is no actual "AI" you're not talking to an actual artificial intelligence. "don't message me unless you've written it with ink, on papyrus". There is a world of difference between grammarly and an autonomous agent creating comments on its own. Specifics, context, and nuance matter.
So many takes and advices that could be taken on this topic, I'll keep my $0.02 short: Get a pet.
Perhaps this can also save you a little bit on psychotherapist costs: Learn to like yourself, and your own company.
Humans are social animals though, but don't try to be social for the sake of it, do things you like that involve people, and be nice to them. OTOH, I've met a couple of Uber drivers that are in it just for the social interaction of it (like retirees mostly). Others here will probably have better tips on this topic though, hope that helps.
I've always wondered how many proponents of open source software also support the concept of copyrights in general. On one hand I see lot of people in these communities support the right to do whatever you want with the things you own, but on the other hand copyright licenses.
I've always liked the MIT license because it is closer to copyleft than GPL variants. I get having to use a license so that people who use the software are legally protected, and attribution can be nice too, so while I don't agree with the legitimacy of software licensing as a whole, in practical terms the MIT is a good and safe license that doesn't impose lots of restrictions on its users.
WTFPL and unlicense are better in my opinion, but lawyers might not like them. if you don't like the idea of lawyers running the world though, they're great. Public domain is the way. Even then, I despise the idea of even acknowledging "Public Domain" as a concept.
But back to my original question, are most people using these licenses because they actually believe in their legitimacy? I always assumed it was to facilitate nonsensical copyright laws.
From wikipedia:
"""
Copyleft is the legal technique of granting certain freedoms over copies of copyrighted works with the requirement that the same rights be preserved in derivative works. In this sense, freedoms refers to the use of the work for any purpose, and the ability to modify, copy, share, and redistribute the work, with or without a fee. Licenses which implement copyleft can be used to maintain copyright conditions for works ranging from computer software, to documents, art, and scientific discoveries. Similar approaches have been applied to certain patents.
"""
Ugh..yeah. Then I don't get it OP, I hope copyleft does indeed die. Either you have a commercial agreement or a contract with a person or you don't. The idea of publishing some work (software, book,etc..) and then by default and without any contractual agreement, dictating what a person does with that work that you published publicly is ridiculous. I know it is the law, but that doesn't make it right. What you put out there to the public, you have no right to control. Either close source your software and require a proper contractual agreement to use it, or make it actually free and actually open. It isn't free if you're going to tell me what to do with it later on, that's a deceptively hidden cost, it isn't really free.
Wouldn't it be in the true spirit of open source and the Linux kernel if absolutley anyone can do whatever they want with the kernel's source code?
The thing that irritates me is that if they want money, let them charge for it. No problem with that. You can charge for your work. But to make it "free" and then demand that the law enforces control over the software after someone has adapted it feels like such a crooked way of doing things. I would prefer to pay for it, so that I too can get some guarantees of the software being viable in return as well.
It sounds to me like 1) You don't truly own copyleft software 2) You don't get any warranty, or expectation of viability 3) certainly, there is no expectation of support of any kind 4) It is marketed as 'free' (deceptively)
if people make modifications to the software and keep that private later on, let them. it's free, it's theirs now, they can do what they want. If they value it though, it is in their interest to keep the upstream project viable, so sensible users will contribute back. Especially considering how globalized software dev has been, you can't even practically enforce something as weak as copyleft outside of the EU, Canada, Japan, and maybe (long shot) in the US.
> if people make modifications to the software and keep that private later on, let them.
This is perfectly legal under the GPL. What's not legal is redistributing that software you modified but not giving _your_ users the same rights to modification that you yourself got.
Nothing in the GPL requires you to release or distribute personal modified versions of GPL software.
If by "keep that private later on" you mean "plagiarize GPL code to add to a proprietary program and distribute it," yeah that's not allowed- but unless you're a fan of pilfering the commons for personal profit, this is an unmitigated good feature of the license.
As an aside, copyleft is on the exact same legal foundation as the EULAs you seem to respect. It is extremely confusing that you think copyleft is bad but EULAs which provide significantly more restrictions are good.
> This is perfectly legal under the GPL. What's not legal is redistributing that software you modified but not giving _your_ users the same rights to modification that you yourself got.
That's still controlling what users do, and worse, it's what they do with modifications, not even your own original work!! and without even agreeing to a contract of such terms.
It's plagarism if the activity was done under some system that required attribution, or if they misrepresented the change's provenance. neither is the case.
I agree with you on EULA's, they've been rendered useless in some cases and jurisdictions. But at least EULA's have a software prompt that enters their users into an agreement. There is a reason they require you to scroll all the way down and read it before agreeing, it is because how inherently weak they are.
I don't necessarily think EULA's are good, but at least as a user, i actually agreed to them. No one is trying to force me to agree to an EULA simply because EULA.txt exists somewhere in the directory tree of the software. And even if they did and had legal grounds, I still would disagree with any terms I didn't explicitly agree to, or any terms of agreement that are lopsided to the advantage of one side.
copyleft is an attempt at corporate greedy litigious manipulative behavior, except the greedy party doesn't actually want money, they just want control.
It is explicitly _not_ controlling what _users_ do. It is a restriction on _distributors_ of software. As a user of the software, you may use it for any purpose, modify it to your heart's desire, and even redistribute it. You just can't redistribute it and then refuse to give downstream users the same rights.
That is not meaningfully a restriction unless you're trying to unjustly profit off the work of others. The copyright holder doesn't exercise control over users here.
I think I am failing at communicating my view. What I am saying is those rights you speak of are invalid. I could use it,redistribute it, profit from it, backdoor it, or print it and make a door stop from it. It is mine. The original author has no say in it.
Perhaps it would help if I mentioned that my objection stems from an overall revulsion at copyright and anti-piracy laws. It is hard for me to object to those and at the same time support the application of those same laws. I either accept the law being used this way by everyone (open source, bigcorp, bigmedia,etc...) or I don't.
Set it free, and if it was meant to be yours, it will come back!
In my opinion, the proper way to solve this is by requiring users agree to a non-distribution, and/or non-commercial use, prior to being allowed to download the open source software. And that agreement is strictly between the person publising it and the person downloading it. If I obtain a copy of it from someone else, I am not bound by the terms of that agreement. Another approach is to actually charge for the open source software for commercial use, yet allow downloading of the software (with a confirmation prompt for non-commercial use prior to download) free of charge. That way, the publisher has a commercial claim, loss of profit, something under tort law against whoever is using their code and profiting from it.
But even then, I don't get in what world a modification, which by definition is new original work that was added to the software, could be a thing the original author have any say over. If publishing software is speech, then that is compelled speech. and you're being coerced into speech, not because you agreed to any terms, but simply because someone put a license term in a file and presumed agreement to those terms, not by the person that obtained a copy from the publisher, but by absolutely anyone who happened to obtain a copy of that software.
My problem if it isn't clear, is that those same laws are used to control what people do with their software and devices in many other contexts. What's good for the goose and all..
In a world where everyone by default had unlimited rights to use, modify, and redistribute software, sure, copyleft would be unnecessary. But we don't live in such a world. You believe users ought to have unlimited rights to do what they want with their software- copyleft hijacks the copyright system to ensure these rights can't be removed downstream. "What's good for the goose" is exactly the rationale behind copyleft- if large corporations can use it to restrict user rights, the community can use it to protect them.
By not supporting copyleft, what you seem to think you're doing is consistently opposing copyright encumberances. But practically speaking, you're just giving up the fight- large corporations can enforce copyright and restrict users, and you don't support fighting back because you believe it would be philisophically inconsistent.
My contention here is that you're wrong, in the sense that we share a goal (software freedom) and your strategy will less effectively accomplish that goal than the one you oppose. Opposing copyleft will not end copyright, but it _will_ give all the benefits of copyright to those looking to restrict user freedom.
We just have different approaches. In my view, I will use the law when I don't have a choice, but in this case there is a choice. I think the copyleft approach is in fact giving up, because as you put it, it is using copyright laws, justifying means by ends.
The fact is, there are public domain licenses, and they work well, they only exist because of legalistic reasons. My view is that the world is what we make of it. Oppressing others because you're oppressed isn't right. I make no distinction between "users" and "redistributors" like you're making. this isn't class warfare from my perspective.
Think of it differently, with public domain, everyone gets the same access. In my view, if the software is modified and redistributed, I don't care, because as a publisher I never claimed any rights over the software I published to begin with. The license is "do whatever you want with it". to be more prescient, property rights, and the ability to freely share what I own is more important to me than the free accessibility of software. I also believe that good free software shouldn't rely on the contributions of commercial entities. From redhat to Google, I've seen good contribution from them, but they also wield an unfair influence over open source projects. From the kernel to systemd, there are endless complaints about them.
copyleft is attempting to entice corporate beneficiaries of open source, whereas I think I'd like to see the opposite of that. Maybe that made sense at the founding of the FSF, but these days the power dynamics are wildly different. I prefer for governments and individuals alike to fund good open source software, and for that software to be truly free. I don't want some corporation supporting the project so that they can wield undue influence over it, and corrupt it to serve their own self interests.
There is no shame in asking for funds or monetary support. Or with asking users to pay for the software directly. the open source community is very large, it isn't a small band of devs writing code on their free time anymore.
> It isn't free if you're going to tell me what to do with it later on, that's a deceptively hidden cost, it isn't really free.
You are confusing two different definitions of the word free. And overall you seem to operate from a place of very little understanding of why protection of authorship, copyright, licensing of works etc exists. Please go and research some more. I hope you learn something. You will not be taken seriously by anyone if you continue like this.
I am fine with you not taking me seriously. I understand the "free as in free beer" definition of free (gratis vs libre) FSF and others deceptively propagate, just because you call it free doesn't make it actually free. That concept would have been fine, if they didn't drag the law into it and made it a legal burden.
A person either owns or doesn't own something. A person either enters a licensing contract or they don't. When I download a piece of source code from github, I did not agree to any license, even if you include LICENSE.txt. Despite what the law says, i did not enter into any agreement of any kind with anyone. When that software is in my possession it is mine. Any attempt to deprive of my rights over my property, I'll classify it as the same scummy practice as DMCA threatening corporations. You don't get to criticize apple and microsoft for keeping things closed source, and preventing you from doing whatever you want with your own hardware and software, and then tell other people your software is free but you can do the same things that caused you to despise those corporations to begin with.
In short, I understand the distinction fine, I just happen to despise it. It is a backhanded fence-sitting litigious mindset. that was my original question though, I guess enough people like you exist, I just couldn't believe it initially.
Your style of arguing makes it very difficult to engage with. Who are “people like me”? You know nothing about me or my opinions. I didn’t state them. You seem to be reading a lot more into what I wrote than what I actually did. And no your claim that you know what freedoms FSF are talking about and at the same time wrongly referring to “free as in free beer” doesn’t demonstrate that you actually reflected on the freedoms they’re arguing for, nor on why copyright exists in the first place and how your idea of “anything that has been published I am totally free to use” may be a political goal, but it’s not how the world works. Oh and I am not sure if you’re aware that you can ASK people what they mean before throwing around insinuations and judgments based on some inner fantasy of the person you’re talking to.
> Who are “people like me”? You know nothing about me or my opinions.
I'm sorry, but you stated your opinion and views before and you just did again, people who believe this are people like you:
> nor on why copyright exists in the first place and how your idea of “anything that has been published I am totally free to use” may be a political goal, but it’s not how the world works
> Your style of arguing makes it very difficult to engage with.
Is it because I said "people like you"? If you took that as a personal attack, I apologize, by that I meant people that have the same mindset and views as you do.
We're debating different views and legalities here after all.
> that you actually reflected on the freedoms they’re arguing for
I think you're just accusing me of things you're not doing. I can only post so many walls of text to explain my views and deep reflections. You're very quick to dismiss my view as being shallow simply because in your view the majority opinion is well thought out and anything opposing it must be dismissed. I argued for my personal and individual rights to property, natural rights so to speak which are more important to me than the pseudo-freedom of software people like you (i hope that term is ok now that I clarified what I mean) eschew.
> but it’s not how the world works
The world works how we make it work. The world works the way it does because people like you dismiss any attempt to change it, just like now. I have no illusion that anytime in my lifetime copyright laws will vanish. But that doesn't mean I'll give up pointing out the silliness of it all and the grand robbery of our most fundamental rights.
> Oh and I am not sure if you’re aware that you can ASK people what they mean before throwing around insinuations and judgments based on some inner fantasy of the person you’re talking to.
I think you're in severe need of a mirror, you're upset because I said "people like me", you're repeating your views, and I'm attacking them repeatedly, but you keep trying to make this debate about my shallow thinking or insinuations, instead of sticking to the merits of the view points being debated.
My view is neither unique nor original for the record.
> Article II – The goal of any political association is the conservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, safety and resistance against oppression.
> Article XVII – Property being an inviolable and sacred right, no one can be deprived of private usage, if it is not when the public necessity, legally noted, evidently requires it, and under the condition of a just and prior indemnity.
I won't ask you to "reflect", but don't ask me to surrender my rights so that you can force someone to do things with their source code. Successful public domain projects exist. And please read my sibling comment here about how the current copyleft thinking has gotten bigtech entrenched in open source, robbing us of our choices and liberties in the process.
I just wanted to let you know why I think your arguments won’t fly with those you seem to oppose to help you improve your position, since from where I stand they don’t address their points, so a proper debate cannot take place. I did not state my own opinion on the matter. This is exhausting; leaving it at that.
Block lists will always be used for one reason or another, in this case these are verified malicious sites, there is no subjective analysis element in the equation that could be misconstrued as censorship. But even if there was, censorship implies a right to speech, in this case Google has the right to restrict the speech of it's users if it so wishes, matter of fact, through extensions there are many that do censor their users using Chrome.
> censorship implies a right to speech, in this case Google has the right to restrict the speech of it's users
I don't follow. Even if Google does have the legal right [1], that does not make the censorship less problematic, or morally right. And even if it's hard to make a legislative fix ("You want to ban companies from trying to protect their users from phishing?") [2], that doesn't undo the problems of the current state, or mean we should be silent about it.
[1] This is far from certain, as it could be argued to be tortious interference, abuse of market power, defamation if they call something phishing when it's not.. Then there's the question of jurisdiction..
[2] It's a very common debating tactic to assert that a solution is difficult, to avoid admitting a problem exists.
Certainly they have the legal right as you pointed out. Freedom of speech is a legal right not a moral prerogative or entitlement.
HN bans users that violate its rules for example. If I were to insult you severely, HN mods have every right to protect you from my speech and censor me by deleting my message and banning me. The threats posed by these malicious sites are far worse than insults on a forum.
Companies like Google are expected by the public and governments alike to protect their users. they would even be entitled to requiring every site a user visits requires an EV cert and age verification enabled if they want. it isn't just their legal right, everyone, not just corporations, has the right to pursue what they feel is the correct way of doing things. Their responsiblity is to their investors first, users second, governmental regimes third and everyone else after that. Your presumed entitlement here is as everyone else.
For #2, I don't recall claiming a solution being difficult (unless you thought banning companies from protecting their users, was somehow a thing I was saying should be done). Matter of fact, I am near incensed that HN users are utterly and shamefully ignorant on harm users suffer. You should be ashamed of your ignorance. Not only this but I've had long debates on HN on similar lines when it came to topics like the play store require developer authentication. It almost makes me wish your freedom of speech was entirely taken away from you so you can have some understanding of the suffering people undergo, and what such measures are trying to prevent. Freedom of speech has never been a right obtained at the expense of harm to others. The moment someone is harmed, you lose your freedom of speech, that is the case in a public arena where such laws exist, but even more so under private platforms. But i did say almost! I think you're just used to problems being of a technical nature, where as in this case it is a human threat (crime) problem.
Furthermore, I am constantly disappointed at the sheer dereliction of duty exhibited by HNers when it comes to security. Your product must protect your users by default, there is absolutely no acceptable amount of harm users should experience for the sake of non-users. Site owners have no entitlements to browsers, they only have privileges. Browsers can and do absolutely play gatekeepers to websites.
As far as #1, I have argued tortious interference about Google's practices myself before. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know if this qualifies or not, but can I also claim tortious interference if HN bans me, if I miss out on HN job posts or exposure to the startup scene? can I claim defamation for being banned on HN wrongfully? is HN abusing it's market power because of the sheer number of silicon valley types that aggregate on this site? And I suspect you're not a lawyer either, because jurisdiction is a concept that applies to a judicial body (hence: juris), Google is not a judicial body, and they're not handing out a judicial sentence.
I wonder, are you aware of the CA/B forum? hmm..
The fact is, a browser is a software used to access network resources. Part of that feature set, as advertised explicitly to users, is that it will make attempts to keep their access to the network safe and secure. In other words, all of your claims of entitlement are nullified by the simple fact that the "censorship" is an advertised feature, one that not only most browser users use, but it is an opt-out-able optional feature. Not only that, there is always an option to click through the safebrowsing warning and visit the site anyways.
Both from a moral and legal perspective, I challenge you to make yourself liable to all damages people suffer as a result of not having safebrowsing enabled. Insure them free of charge. Next thing I know you'll be claiming enterprise networks shouldn't "censor" either, or better yet, they can but people who can't afford multi-million-dollar firewalls shouldn't be protected for the sake of access you feel entitled to.
As far as libel, simply being incorrect doesn't make it libel, it needs to be intentional. so long as they can back up the reasonable cause of your site making it on their list, it isn't libel. Just same as your IP can land on their lists and gmail will refuse to accept email from you (just same as every public email provider).
Freedom of speech is not freedom of access, both morally and legally. You dilute actual freedoms when you try to abuse them to gain advantages like this. It is important to understand when being able to do something is a right versus a privilege. It is also important to solve the root cause of problems, even though I disagree with you on this topic, Google's monopoly is a big problem, as is Microsoft's and other companies, but your solution being "there shouldn't be a solution" is (I'd dare say) morally objectionable and abhorrent considering the types of harm people suffer as a result. Perhaps appeals to block lists could have a more legally regulated process? But there are more pressing issues like payment processors banning merchants and users alike all the same (worse than browsers than site in terms of impact?), and not a single government would dare claim that is out of line, let along regulate it. The right of companies to do business how they want is highly protected in free market economies, and something like Chrome isn't even a paid product or service to where you can have a commercial or contractual claim over it.
Since this is a long comment, I'll add this finally to it: If you seriously think Google cant' block arbitrary sites on its free software and service, then by that logic users should also have entitlements for bans on sites like HN, and even on things like your open source project, you can't just not accept pull requests or ignore them, if it is affecting a user and they're relying on it, your features preventing them from doing things is tortious interference. claiming negative things about pull requests is libel.
> Freedom of speech is a legal right not a moral prerogative or entitlement.
No, the 1st amendment of the US constitution is a legal right. Free speech in general is a much broader concept, not limited to its legal implementation.
> For #2, I don't recall claiming a solution being difficult
You didn't, but it is how these discussions usually develop, and I thought of saving some time. And indeed that's how it went.
it did not go that way, the problem is not difficulty of doing anything, a private corporation offering a free product has the right to do whatever it wants with that product. their reasoning behind GSB is not for you to debate.
Free speech in general is a legal concept. rights in general are not moral concepts, when you say you have a right to do something, it is always in the context of a rules based framework. When you say something is right (same word, different meaning) or wrong, that is morality. Speech can be right or wrong. prohibiting someone from speaking can also be right or wrong, but it isn't called "freedom of speech" or "censorship". If you can't articulate why something is morally wrong without referring to a right under some rule based framework, then you're not talking about morality, you're talking about not liking some rule.
When you are in someone's house, they have the right to decide what you can talk about or not talk about, because it is their home and your presence there is a privilege. Replace home with business, and then replace business with a free product that you're not even paying for and that's this situation.
"I don't like it" is not a moral reasoning. You need to be able to articulate why something is immoral if you're going to use morality as a reason. Similarly, you need to explain what specific laws grant you an entitlement if you feel like a legal entitlement is violated.
> Replace home with business, and then replace business with a free product that you're not even paying for and that's this situation.
And then replace business with country and society that enables that business' existence, and in whose sovereign land that business is located (i.e. in whose house it is), and that's still this situation.
> Free speech in general is a legal concept.
So if someone says "free speech", you just have no idea whatsoever what they're talking about, until they also tell you which country/jurisdiction they're talking about, do you?
And I didn't make a moral argument - I said that there is a moral (not just legal) argument to be made. I don't have the time or inclination to walk you through why free expression is desirable, or why letting a handful of giant entities crush speech and smaller businesses is undesirable. If you need that explained to you, I don't think we'll see eye to eye no matter how long we debate.
> And then replace business with country and society that enables that business' existence, and in whose sovereign land that business is located (i.e. in whose house it is), and that's still this situation.
Yes, so it is a legal construct then? countries and societies generally exist under the rule of law. In the US, both legally and socially, we've decided to accept a free-market capitalist way. Under that social agreement, both individuals and companies have certain rights and entitlements over their products and services.
Under a more universal moral regime, if you have a good reason to believe someone might come in harms way, you have an obligation to do something about it so long as it is within your means to do. Preventing others from coming into harm supersedes the presumed entitlements of third parties. In this case, Google is nice enough to let users disable GSB or bypass GSB warnings. When a certificate for a website expires for example, similar to GSB every browser shows a warning. almost every single time, the site isn't compromised and there is no MITM attack happening, but we accept that is the best course of action, I don't see you protesting that because you understand it is the right thing to do. But in this case you just don't like GSB and you're looking for some moral ground to stand on because no other ground will let you.
> So if someone says "free speech", you just have no idea whatsoever what they're talking about, until they also tell you which country/jurisdiction they're talking about, do you?
You just said it isn't a legal concept, so why does that matter? But context does matter, in this case we're on a US based website talking about a US based company.
> why free expression is desirable, or why letting a handful of giant entities crush speech and smaller businesses is undesirable.
aha! you don't need to walk me through anything, but I think you confuse what is desirable and undesirable with what is moral and immoral. for desirable and undesirable, you use the law to enact your preferences. your desires however have no bearing on morality.
I don't think we'll see eye to eye either, but because I suspect our understand of morality and the rule of law is not aligned.
It is possible for sure. what's your point? spamhaus does too with IPs, abuse.ch does too, every enterprise firewall's reputation list does too. that's the whole point of reputation, if it was reliable 100% it wouldn't be "reputation".
You don't have to use tylenol, just like GSB. Since we're picking random analogies, I think bankruptcy and or violent crime are close to what this is stopping. I'd say if it stops just one person from losing their life's savings, suffering physical harm, or psychological trauma, yeah, your blog being on GSB is worth it.
99% of users don't even know they're being protected. There's no promise except "we work to make browsing safer" and cutting even 5% of malicious sites from a user's experience is an unmitigated win for that user at the low false positive rate Safe Browsing offers.
that doesn't make a difference, they're still being protected. 99% of users don't know that defender saved their lives multiple times from being destroyed either. Same with spam filters, app store rejections,etc..
I don't get why there is such a lack of critical thinking on this topic here.
If the other options would just straight up kill innocent bystanders (e.g. false positives for legit shops) I think that is a tradeoff I am willing to make.
Stop locking your door if someone can just break through the window then. I think you and the author are conflating 16% effective with 84% of sites on GSB are false positives, that's not what that stat means.
The framing of an LLM's response as truth vs lie is in itself incorrect.
In order to lie, one needs to understand what truth and objective reality are.
Even with people, when a flat-earther tells you the earth is flat, they're not lying, they're just wrong.
All LLM output is speculation. All speculation, by definition, has some probability of being incorrect.
---
We can go even deeper in a philosophical sense. If I made the audacious claim that 2 +2 = 4, I may think it's true, but I'm still speculating that the objective reality I experience is the same one others also experience, and that my senses and mental faculties, and therefore the qualia making up my reality, are indeed intact, correct, and functional. So is there a degree of speculation when I made that claim?
Regardless, I am able to agree upon a shared reality with the rest of the world, and I also share a common understanding of truth and untruth. If I lied, it can only be caused by an intention to mislead others. For example, if I claimed to be the president of the united states, of course that would be incorrect (thankfully!), but since we all agree that no one reading this post would actually be mislead into thinking I am the POTUS, then it isn't a lie. Perhaps sarcasm, a failed attempt at humor, or just trolling. it is untruth, but it isn't a lie, no one was mislead. You need intent (LLM isn't capable of one), and that intent needs to be at least in part, an intent to mislead.
reply