voluble

I didn't know this, that's really cool.

I like NoScript exactly for the rabbit hole it opens! Now I'm very aware of what scripts are running on which pages! Actively blocking blatant ad scripts & data scraping scripts makes me feel good.

I didn't say any of that.

AI is still very much in its infancy, and seeing the sort of progress that has been made even over the past 12 months, I don't see how anyone can imagine that it will remain a small and discrete slice of the pie, that it doesn't have radical transformative power.

My vision - gen z artists will reflexively use AI to enhance their material as artist and AI become entangled to a point where they're impossible to distinguish. AI art will increase in fidelity, until it exceeds the fidelity that we can create with our tools. It will become immediately responsive to an audience's needs in a way that human art can't. What do you want to see? AI will make it for exactly your tastes, or to maybe confront your tastes and expand your mind, if that's what you'd like. It will virtualize the artistic consciousnesses of Picasso, Goya, Michelangelo, and create new artists with new sensibilities, along with thousands of years of their works, more than a person could hope to view in a lifetime. Pop culture will be cheaper than ever, and have an audience of one - that new x rated final season of Friends you had a passing thought about is waiting for you to watch when you get home from work. Do you want 100 seasons of it? No problem. The whole notion of authorship is radically reformed and dies, drowned in an unfathomable abyss of AI creations. Human creativity becomes like human chess. People still busy themselves with it for fun, knowing full well that it's anachronistic and inferior in every way.

Donno, just a thought I have sometimes.

Dark thought, but maybe that was the plan.

Right, if this sort of browser wall thing happens (which, the doctrine of enshittification seems to dictate that it probably will), and it can't be spoofed or worked around. Alright, I'm seeing the issues here. Thanks for chiming in with your thoughts. This is a huge deal, if it goes in this sort of direction.

The thought here is that, a website could be programmed to, for example, only be accessible to users of chrome (or even an android device), correct? Other than google itself, why would any website want to do such a thing? Is the idea that google is trying to bring users to chrome, by blocking google services on other browsers? That could be really transformative for the web, because then you'd have microsoft doing the same thing with edge, apple doing the same thing with safari, other companies like fb or whatever launching their own bespoke 'browsers' to access their services. Will users actually put up with the degree of fragmentation that this move might bring? Won't it just push users to the 'old internet' where you can simply go to a website and interact with it?

Sorry, I'm kind of talking out loud here trying to wrap my head around this. I see people grousing about DRM and ads, and I'm struggling to connect all the dots.

Then ecommerce sites. “You must have DRM enabled to be allowed to buy anything.”

I'm actually not sure about this one. Money is money. If I'm a vendor, and a bunch of bots want to give me money, I say bring it on. Why would any ecommerce vendor add that layer of friction, which could actually prevent a user from buying something from them? What's in it for the vendor?

Seems to me the more likely anti-consumer hell is a points dystopia leveraged by monopolistic companies. Like apple, microsoft, or disney moving to some sort of loyalty points system where you can only buy their products using a currency and credit system that they control. Like, 'stream this movie using your disney points card'. We're not far off from that really.

Can someone shed some light for me? I'm a noob and I'm not sure I understand what is being proposed by google here. From what I can tell, they're proposing a cryptographically signed token that details information about a website user's 'environment', which I take to mean, their device OS and browser information, for the sake of verifying their humanity for website owners and advertisers. Isn't this sort of information already collected when a user visits a webpage, and doesn't google (or whomever) already collect and use this data (and more) for fingerprinting? How is this new proposal different, and something to be specifically concerned about?

I know there are anti-fingerprinting browser privacy addons that spoof this information, or prevent its collection. Is the concern that these tools will become inoperable?

For the record I don't like google or any company collecting any fingerprinting information, but it's already being done widely and in an unregulated manner, isn't it?

I hear that. Cheers, stranger!

I think karma whoring is a real problem for that site. Any post that reaches a popular critical mass gets slammed with people trying to make a quick joke or pun for upvotes, and so even commentary on popular news stories was filled with fluff, memes, or basic circlejerking. The karma system also incentivizes this really shitty dunking culture that is so bad for discourse.

It might come here eventually if lemmy gets popular enough. But even if it does the platform as a whole is just more righteous and worthwhile. It doesn't exist as a commercial entity to drive engagement in order to satisfy advertisers, and that's something really unique and different in our day & age.

better tools for moderation

Where have I heard that before?