data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/33b20/33b20870f6d0ea7e1bacfd49de3c242fd138982f" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1df69/1df69f53f5559e83c288e08b403109544e78dc05" alt=""
google tries not to kill one of it’s products challenge (impossible)
google tries not to kill one of it’s products challenge (impossible)
the current solution for that would be similar to the current “sponsor block” plugins, here’s an example
crowdsourced start and endpoints for embedded sponsorships
something like this tool, but for future embedded google adverts
the “open source hackers” are always going to win this one, for a simple reason. if the data of the youtube video is handed to a user at any point, then the information it contains can be scrubbed and cleaned of ads. no exceptions.
if google somehow solves all ad-blocking techniques within browser, then new plugins will be developed on the operating system side to put a black square of pixels and selectively mute audio over the advert each time. if they solve that too? then people will hack the display signal going out at the graphics card level so that it is cleaned before it hits the monitor. if they beat that using some stupid encryption trick? well, then people will develop usb plugin tools that physically plug into the monitors at the display end, that artificially add the black boxes and audio mutes at the monitor display side.
if they beat that? someone, someone will jerry rig a literal black square of paper on some servos and wires, and physical audio switch to do the same thing, an actual, physical advert blocker. i’m sure once someone works that out, a mass produced version would be quite popular as a monitor attachment (in a timeline that gets so fucked that we would need this).
if that doesn’t work? like, google starts coding malware to seek and destroy physical adblockers? then close your eyes and mute your headphones for 30 seconds, lol. the only way google is solving that one is with hitsquads and armed drones to make viewers RESUME VIEWING
as long as a youtube video is available to access without restriction, then google cannot dictate how the consumer experiences that video. google cannot win this.
this comment is aimed at those future “just passing through” visitors, who are still on the fence with regards to the fediverse.
any internet power user will know, and be able to tell you that the internet feels wrong as of late. everything that you try to use is slightly broken for some reason. why is it becoming harder to use basic services that we took for granted 5 years ago?
unfortunately, the internet is changing once again, and it’s time to pick a side.
you can side with big corpo, stay in their walled ecosystems, and embrace enshittification.
or, you can side with the fediverse, break out of your silo, and take control of your own means of content participation.
the choice is yours.
if you like following concepts or “things” (reddit-style), then try here: https://join-lemmy.org/
or, if you prefer following individuals or “trends” (twitter-style), then try here: https://joinmastodon.org/
The so-called “spy clause” in the UK’s Online Safety Bill, which experts argued would have made end-to-end encryption all but impossible in the country, will no longer be enforced…
oh okay. so they’re still going to pass it into law anyway, and then pinky promise not to enforce it. right… 🤦
california is the largest “sub-national” economy in the world. if california was a country, it would have the fifth largest economy. bigger than the uk, or bigger than india.
if i had to guess, the answer is “success breeds jealousy”
there is a very good chance that this project by meta is the thin end of the wedge
(edited to include “the blogpost”, link here)
oh perfect, thanks!
hi, i’m stuck on rules 9 and 11, because i cannot both have today’s wordle answer, and also have it multiply to equal 35 in roman numerals. what do i do?
i think it’s worth reminding why doctors treat people now, in this time and space. they do it mostly because they want to save people. maybe a few do it for money, but past a certain point, the money isn’t why you do it. i think it’s a safe bet that doctors of a future would see these corpses as patients, and act accordingly. an analogy - think how we see heart attack victims as patients, and not how our medieval ancestors would have seen them (as corpses)
true, but, a good chunk of patients in hopsital today have nothing to contribute to society, and cannot contribute any more, whatsoever. we treat them anyway, because that’s what we do. humans have consistently cared for others that are sick and have “nothing to contribute” throughout history, and that shows no sign of going away anytime soon