We are witnessing exactly the same "you can't do what we did to you" with AI: they trained all their AIs without authorization and everyone's data. And now if you try to scrap their data, they will sue you.
Of course we do. It's a logical consequence of applying the basic rules of capitalism to this and other fields. Behaving like this increases profits while keeping costs low and getting ahead of competition. I know it feels quite human, especially if it's communicated and signed by humans in the corporations, but those corporations aren't "evil" or anything - they only adhere to the rules of a system that we collectively accept: free market capitalism. That's why shitting on corporations like Nestlé or Facebook doesn't help. It's just easy and makes you feel like you did something so you don't have to deal with the complicated reality behind it. But, as it always has been, in reality, the system is the problem. All the legislation suggested in the video are drops in the ocean. Better than nothing, but it's not an actual, sustainable solution. Change has to be literally radical, as in: it has to attack at the roots. In the end, after about 170 years of industrialized, unhinged capitalism, time is finally running out. Inequality is more blatant than ever, social instability and social conflicts are becoming more and more dangerous. The climate crisis will make this all even worse, Our current refugee movements and economic problems are nothing compared to this. After all this time, we are actually facing challenges that, if we don't fundamentally change, can realistically overwhelm and destroy human civilization. But even if the worst case doesn't happen, on the way there we can still easily lose things like democracy, or peace.
Section 1201 prohibits two types of activities. First, it prohibits circumventing technological protection measures (or TPMs) used by copyright owners to control access to their works. For example, the statute makes it unlawful to bypass a password system used to prevent unauthorized access to a streaming service. Second, it prohibits manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in certain circumvention technologies, products, services, devices, or components.
Section 1201 of intellectual property law makes two things illegal. First, it's against the law to bypass technological protections that control access to copyrighted content. This means you can't break through password systems or other barriers that prevent unauthorized access. Second, it's also illegal to create or distribute tools that can be used to bypass these protections.
19:51 "An app is just a web page with enough IP for Apple or Google to send you to prison if you mod it." That is interesting. I never understood the obsession with apps, they typically don't require functionality not already available via browsers and constantly being routed to the app store is a shit user experience. Perhaps that explains the somewhat failed attempt to mold desktop OSes into mobile OSes too.
@@DrEnzyme We always knew the reason dude, it is always about control and revenue, be it from selling our data or showing ads or ideally from their perspective, both But yeah, "apps as web pages with enough IP" is a quite valuable brain dropping from Cory 👍
@@Phasma6969 the web was made for documents, not for applications. The bloat started when AJAX was invented in 2007 (circa). All because directly exposing APIs was too open for the business that were starting to get too big. So making single page applications was a way of "jailing" the APIs, everything had to go through the layer of HTML. So now for interop you needed to webscrape data from HTML, its not impossible, but IS a barrier, you increased the cost of interop from almost 0 to something of substation effort, because then when you depend on the flimsy UX changes, your interop might break. That's why we have a bloated "web". It was the first attempt at jailing data. The App was a best answer for jailing data. Of course they didn't stop there, now we have TPM, and root of trust and crap like the entire system being locked down. You don't own a computer if you don't own the data and the computing. I'm a software developer, and when I started my career in 2003, the code of ethics was that the user owned the data, you owned the application, but not the computing or the data. Nowadays, the user owns nothing. The developer owns nothing. The platforms owns everything, no wonder everything is shit and developers are mere factory workers.
Totally agree, having given up FB and Twitter about 9 years ago I joined Reddit only to find Reddit is absolutely full of screenshots from FB and Twitter while thinking they are better than FB and Twitter. Social media is nothing but a curse on humanity
@@Afreshio The way it was designed is the cause of it being a reeking shithole, subs, while a good idea on paper very quickly and inevitably turned into echo chambers where opposing sides regularly attack and troll each other, form mobs and spread misinformation. I'm well aware there are many benign subs with good and helpful content there's just far too many echo chambers, and if you've ever seen the types of things that go on in the hidden subs, you'd scrub Reddit from your entire internet history and never log in again.
Reddit has been a circlejerk shithole for a long time. This is nothing new. Only the really niche subreddits have at least somewhat decent communities.
Professional tech educator here. There is still quite a bit of tech space jargon here. But you're right that it is pretty good overall. It's just not going to have quite the value for people who aren't willing or thoughtful enough to do some web searches to look up some of what they're hearing. I'm not sure if he even defined the term "IP." I don't blame him for that, given his immediate audience. But a lot of people still aren't going to know what that is, despite what we may think about its commonality.
I disagree. The talk is clever but not for non tech guys - ite filler with insider knowledge and are mostly for a Peer audience. And you just might be part of that audience
Agreed, I don't know anything about hacking and this was very interesting! That said I heard about Cory from the Srsly Wrong podcast so I think his name is spreading quite fast
14:10 - "a computer that runs all the programs except for those that make the shareholders sad" sounds a bit like a description of the current smartphone ecosystem and app stores.
I stumbled upon Cory's twitter when the hacking educators I followed shared his threads. Best follow I ever did on that enshittified platform, everything he writes about is interesting and motivating. One of the ideologues who seems uncorrupted by his blind devotion to his values: still a nice person at the core. Excellent and optimistic talk!
Ever since Twitter has been invaded 1:56 by a Space Karen, truly independent media is back to square one. The Nation Magazine, Mother Jones and other progressive print media had a chance of exposure until Space Karen came along and said the same thing that the Republican appointed Judges on the Supreme Court said : "Money is speech". I don't know about the rest of you but I don't have the same amount of money that Lockheed Martin has, so despite me criticizing them, people almost never get to hear anything except L.M.'s claims, not my rebuttals.
I too want an internet that isn't trying to squeeze me for everything I've got, The old internet was full of nonsense and bullshit, but at least you could tell them apart.
It's good to see that at least some of the younger generation is being made aware of this. Some of us tried to prevent this inevitable descent into excrement 30+ years ago. The job ahead of you is going to be much harder to get done, but hopefully there are now more knowledgeable people involved. SCOTUS is hearing a case designed to destroy the CPFB this session.
I'm just curious: were you one of the ones who "tried to prevent this inevitable descent". If so, what did you do? If not, who was and what did they do ?
the applause being filtered by the noise reducing software makes it sounds like they're clapping in some strange unified rhythm. bizarre choice, defcon. great talk
There is nothing to fear but fear itself. And look at what they do with their fear. Self sovereignty over our data is inevitable and the EU seems to be leading the way on this
Capitalism: Capitalists control the gold. Have fun, peasants. And please, do not abolish this economic system. We promise you the """good regulations""" are totally coming! You just wait!
Listened to the whole talk. Breath of fresh air. I’ve been thinking to myself a lot about corporate consolidation, and the poisoning of digital real-estate for startups and small business owners, artists, entrepreneurs, creatives, etc and yeah everything he’s saying about interop is the key. They tinker with our business, then once they’re big enough, they put people in prison for doing the exact same thing.
I'm about the same age a Cory. So I can remember the internet when it was only grey, black and a kind of blue-purple. Also recall the short period of time between the internet becoming open to people without .edu emails, and the opening up for commercial use. This was unfortunately concurrent with the 'interactive multimedia' trend of the 90s. So everyone saw the commercialization as a good thing. Who else but tech startups will have the money to do motion video and 3D rendering over dialup? Nobody was asking what about privacy, what about keeping this open source, what about all the static Doctor Who and cat pages which made up 90%of the non EDU internet. This was a rally great talk. Sadly I doubt anything will change. Same as the climate crisis, people with money are making sure nothing slows down the profit harvest.
You believe in the CO2 lie. Which is literally just a way of erasing all of the actual environmental action pre 2000 in favor of selling lithium battery based technologies which creates incredible amounts of pollution including radioactivity and the poisoning of groundwater. The environment is not merely climate and out of all environmental concerns CO2 is the least of your worries. 70% of Chinese water is so polluted it is completely unusable. There is 90% more toxic waste in China then there is storage capacity. Etc etc. the Ukraine war is causing more starvation than “climate change “ you trust the propaganda of the most high level elites in order to sell carbon credits.
Part of what made that era of the internet seem so good in retrospect was the filtering of users, though. To get on you needed to be fairly wealthy (computers weren't cheap) and have very good technical knowledge (Ever diagnosed a PPP connection authentication failure?). So the 90's and early 2000s internet was composed almost entirely of tech enthusiasts from middle-class families. Culturally rather uniform.
The degradation of products and names started well before there was an internet. "Off shoring" production was a legal means to dodge the law restricting businesses from selling their products below cost. Overseas, you can have products manufactured by workers being paid slave wages. When you bring them back, you can sell them dirt cheap. And they are largely worth what you paid.
Offshoring also made the product manufacturers no longer liable for things such as lead contamination Etc. Almost every product made offshore has lead contamination.. Amongst other things. Then they got caught rigging the home surface lead testing kits so they wouldn't indicate even on pure lead LOL
@@blaqlabspodcast5816 Yes. Just about any regulation you can imagine that was put in place to protect workers from workplace hazards, and consumers from product hazards, was nonexistent overseas. People complain about the nanny state and the precautionary principle, I do myself, but there are commonsense things should be done regardless of whether there are regulations or not.
It's an ongoing trend for companies to give worse products and services to make more money. Pretty sad, but Ig we deserve it for not complaining enough. Don't be a Karen towards people who don't deserve, but towards who do!
"We don't know how to make a computer that runs all the programs except the one that makes your shareholders sad" iOS seems pretty close to this. Companies have tried making computers like this before such as with web books. Thankfully it has never been very commercially successful or it has been easy to override the restrictions. I would hate to imagine what it would be like if this was the case for all machines
Chrome OS is worse (while somehow also being better by allowing Linux VMs), and Android is getting there (especially Android TV). Companies have been intentionally gaslighting people into thinking that mobile devices are somehow fundamentally different from plain old computers and they need to be locked down for "security". Apple has the balls to do this right out in the open by allowing you to install Linux on Macbooks but locking the bootloader on iPads that use THE SAME PROCESSOR.
@@antonliakhovitch8306 chromebooks might actually be one of the other things you might want to look into, all of them run coreboot, all run open source ec firmware, and mrchromebox has been making custom coreboot builds you can flash right from dev mode accessible by entering recovery (esc-refresh-power), then pressing ctrl+d, agree on android why the hell is it so hard to get by without gms and all the bootloader locks and fake "open standards" tied cryptographically to gms
@@ZarHakkar Windows 7 was the last one that tried to compete with apple by providing some minor semblance of user control. Windows 8 tried and failed to port a touch based mobile system to desktop, and 10+ is just microsoft trying to copy apple.
you can still jailbreak iOS devices, Chromebooks, Android, etc, and "sideload" whatever code you want. There's still malware that manages to attack iOS and Android just fine. When Cory effectively says "we only know how to make the Turing complete computer that can run any code" he's talking about the hardware layer. iOS and ChromeOS can lock the users down as much as they want at the OS and software layer but the hardware ALWAYS holds the potential for hacking, jailbreaking, malware or other forms of "hostile interoperability"; there is no other kind of computer - that's why people have successfully installed DOOM on ATMs, Ultrasound Scanners, 1998 digital cameras.
mid 80s to mid 90s, mid 90s to mid 00s, mid 00s to early 10s, mid 10s until now... that matching your timeline? At this rate we should expect better to start in the next 2-3yrs and last for around 7? I have my doubts... the worst parts of the internet have been growing the whole time, they never really got turned over at any time and now they're too big.
The only problem is assumption that government serves the normal people, instead of just the rich people who own corporations. The EU just passed the digital markets act because Europe lost out on tech sector, so now Europe is forcing US companies to let European companies enter the market. So I fear most governments aren't very interested on enforcing interoperability, maybe with the international nature of the internet the laws by the EU are enough, but I doubt the American government will follow through.
Reminds me of the early US's very lax attitude to copyright, and refusal to cooperate in international enforcement. It wasn't in their best interests - the country wasn't known for a prolific writing industry, so copyright would just have meant sending lots of money to mostly-European publishers at a clear detriment to American businesses. Then times changed, the American media industry grew - and suddenly the government was demanding strong, internationally-unified copyright laws. Then they started condemning China for doing exactly what their own country had done. A really huge, internationally-influential company can be an asset to the country of origin. They may dodge taxes, but they can still export the national culture, collect valuable intelligence, and foster trade relationships that increase the power of sanctions threats. So why would a government want to break one up?
@mx338 You may find some value in Ludwig von Mises essays on socialism (now a book), it provides a rational take on socialism and human action that remains unrefuted almost a century later and is not taught nearly anywhere, at least afaik. The problems apply broadly to any centralized system, and there are groups of people who are actively pushing for socialism despite the unaddressed failures. For example, an offshoot of the Fabian's publicized in their magazine (1890s) the idea of collectively as a group purchasing all the means of production (area by area, through centralization), in real estate, and then passing it to the control of the people over time (nationalization). There can be close comparisons drawn with regard to this strategy, and the ability to print money (i.e. Federal Reserve) coupled with leveraged buyouts of a few players. There's a lot of lost knowledge that was well known in the 50s that is now so hard to find.
The government primarily serves corporations through regulatory capture. This is why we should DEregulate the economy. The United States does not have the cultural solidarity that Europe has to pull off what Europe does. US problems, US solutions. Regulation is the problem here, not the solution.
Also, the Dean effect happens here: I encourage your event to include audience response in your audio, because without it, it seems like he’s having both Howard Dean moments as well as Jeb Bush (please clap) moments
What an amazing talk. I have never heard an explanation of what I’ve been seeing and feeling in tech put in such an understandable and entertaining way before. Wow.
Unfortunate that the noise cancellation cuts out the "Woo!"s that precede that applause, so it sometimes sounds like he's waiting and asking for applause.
Too late to save the net, like it's too late to save the world. Even if you could save the net, there's not much point if you don't save the world as well, and there's no way that's happening.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is time to bust up these giant corporations which were built with taxpayer dollars. Thank you Cory. You are the best.
Built with taxpayer dollars on the backs of exploited and undervalued workers and a splash of chattel slavery ya mean :p (this is me "yes and"ing you, I'm in agreement)
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🎙️ Cory Doctorow discusses the changing nature of the internet. 01:12 🌐 He introduces the concept of "enshittification," describing how platforms evolve and degrade. 02:32 📉 Doctorow outlines the three stages of platform degradation: good to users, abuse for business, and self-benefit at the expense of users. 08:50 💰 He discusses the final phase where platforms withdraw all surplus and users are left unsatisfied, potentially leading to the platform's downfall. 10:34 🏛️ Doctorow explains how the lack of competition and changes in antitrust enforcement contribute to platform degradation. 14:13 🔄 He discusses the tension between Network effects and low switching costs in the tech industry. 19:22 🚫 Doctorow highlights how companies use IP laws to prevent adversarial interoperability, stifling competition. 21:52 🔧 He outlines the steps to reverse platform degradation: halting consolidation, breaking up tech giants, and enabling competition. 23:47 👏 Doctorow commends recent efforts to challenge tech monopolies, emphasizing the importance of swift action. 24:05 🌐 Interoperability is key to devolving control over technology from giant companies to smaller entities. 24:32 📜 Comprehensive Federal privacy laws with a private right of action are needed to protect privacy. 25:16 🏛️ Laws like the digital markets Act should force Tech platforms to provide APIs for new platforms. 26:50 🧩 Mandatory APIs need to be regulated to prevent cheating while allowing emergency actions. 28:57 💼 Tech Giants need to be incentivized to encourage competition rather than sabotage it. 31:30 🌐 Adversarial interoperability can help prevent companies from Nerfing their APIs. 34:03 📚 Spreading good ideas and taking steps to prevent weakness is crucial in the tech industry. 43:01 🤝 Collaboration and minimizing harm are key principles for the future of Federated open Services. 43:41 🗳️ Political change requires a slow and strategic approach, focusing on primaries and state-level actions. 45:21 🌐 Making tech independence and interop accessible to all is essential.
@@unicodefox If AI can transcribe and annotate presentations then I'm all for it. As Cory describes the Luddites, they were not anti-technology, they were anti using-technology-to-steal-people's-livelihoods-and-hoard-the-fruits-for-the-owner-class. He also talks about technology in terms of who it does what to and for whom. If it's used to oppress on behalf of oppressors, then that use is shitty. If its used to help people and those people control how it helps them, then that is good.
You just created a paradox because you have a RUclips account. If you think RUclips isn't a "social medium" then you clearly don't know what that word means.
😅 For someone who's gung-ho about “seizing the means of computation”, this is a surprisingly status quo approach. Where's the revolution, where are the beheadings, where are the gulags?
100% I am so glad we have folks willing to fight the legal battles too, while us techies do the constant game of getting things to stay interoperatable.
Did you guys use some sort of sihtty AI noise suppression? Please don't unless it's a last resort, it removes half of the audience's laughs and makes the viewing experience quite unsettling. (It's the same issue with all the videos of the conference)
Every time he lectures I feel this way. I wish I could do more to get to the future he describes, it seems like he has thought through all the social factors I'm worried about in more detail than I have, but somehow still maintains a clear, hopeful direction towards fixing them. His books are great, too; and the EFF does great work!
I'd never heard of Cory until I read Little Brother. Since then I've always been happy to see anything he has to say. One of the most insightful people speaking about tech in the world today
You might wanna read up on what Cory himself thinks of that book (and its sequel) in hindsight (and 10000% less naivety), many years later, in the foreword of the third book in the series - "Attack Surface". Which, funnily enough by the way, seems far less freely available than Little Brother.
One of the best, information packed talks I've ever seen on defcon, perfectly applicable to both the average user as well as administrators and 'runners. Ignore the braindead comments, this is great.
@jeffbrownstain if you think this is great, you were clearly not paying attention to the important parts or have a big hole in your education. This talk provided no value, worse it touches only on surface level issues, as any good politician does, and promotes band-aid fixes that simply will not work. There was much more the speaker could have talked about, but didn't, and what is not said is sometimes more important than what was said in the context of someone who may be trying to mislead others, the speaker has a heavy bias towards Marxism. The promoted solutions will not change the outcome, because they cannot come to pass, and it was pushed using a deceitful process (hegelian dialectic structure), that does not follow rational logic. The proposed changes will only makes the problems worse but sounds reasonable at first glance because they don't talk about the details that matter. Its counting on fooling people into supporting socialism when they have not been educated about socialism and its fundamental flaws. Ludwig Von Mises wrote a seminal work that was put into a book, it covers the rational problems of socialism, which remains today unrefuted (almost 100 years later). These same problems broadly described in detail by Mises, apply to any centralized bureaucracy or power structure. I find it concerning the word choices the author makes, in that they attempt to subvert and psychology prime/associate the only solution being that of violent change (one step removed). Seizing the means of computation for example is a play on 'seizing the means of production', which is found in Marxism, and its various derivatives (communism). What do you think happens when regulatory capture prevents the changes from being made, and you no longer have an effective voice because your elected representatives are not doing their job; that is what he left unsaid but no doubt comes to mind when dealing with legislative changes to most of the population. When a system has been rationally disproved as being viable, and survival of all is dependent on that system it becomes safety-critical which means you handle it differently based on sound risk-management strategy. Supporters that blindly pushing for a change to a system that will ultimately lead to failure, are effectively seeking destruction for everything that system touches (including themselves) in the hope that what was promised will come to pass; it will not. I will not argue that what he says has some small truth; any true deceit meant to manipulate or mislead will always have some marginal truth woven into it while ever leading you towards an undesirable outcome until you no longer have a choice. One must always beware people who promote themselves as an authority, especially when they have conflicts of interest or motive. Deceitful people don't play by the rules, and power should never be given to them, and whether the speaker will admit it or not he's promoting a system that will ultimately fail because the fundamental (known) problems have been ignored. He has enough of a grasp to use the technical word choices correctly so this can't simply be an oversight in my opinion.
TL;DR Accuses the speaker of being a "marxist" for supporting the real creative forces behind capitalism. You've wasted your life worrying about Marxism and academic theories that hurt your feelings, meanwhile phony "capitalists" in suits have performed regulatory capture, gutted the vibrant creativity of our markets, and pushed us towards a world of feudalism / oligarchy.
@@thethan3 He clearly doesn't understand us when he said a livestreamed mass pewing would send users away from the site... We're a generation that looked up chechen war beheadings at 10 years old for fun
@@RT-qd8yl Not what I did at that age, but I did receive a healthy education that was better than most, and as a result I am more aware of the darkness and the seemingly harmless forms it often takes at first glance, before showing its true colors and causing real harm. People who promote lies with the intention to mislead the gullible are often monsters in disguise and don't deserve attention.
I find it interesting that RUclips recommended this to me. Wonderful talk. (I was a script kiddie once, that's as far as I went). To the person at RUclips who hit back by dropping this into the algorithm. Nice one!
These corporations basically want a feudalism situation instead of capitalism. And when we try to stop them, they accuse us of being anti-capitalist. It's infuriating.
In medieval times, there weren't really many revolutions. That really started with the American and French Revolution, the age of Enlightenment, an emerging (egalitarian!) idea of nationalism based on individual freedoms and unalienable rights. 1789 - 1918 was THE time for revolutionaries. Maybe a bit longer even if you want to include the Spanish Civil War. 🟥✊ (Edit: Obviously, there were still later ones like the Portuguese Carnation Revolution or the several events in Eastern Europe following the downfall of the Soviet Union. But it's not high times anymore.) In the Middle Ages, you only had some small peasant revolts with no ideological basis, but mostly top-down conflicts that shifted power dynamics in the nobility. Even the early modern age didn't really have any significant revolutions. *_Disclaimer:_* All of the above is stated regarding Western and mostly European societies. I'm not educated on revolutionary practices in medieval America, Africa, Oceania or Asia.
On the government side, we are actually seeing this now in software procurement. Defense contractors now have to ensure their proprietary, black box software talks to the GOV's open messaging system so anyone can plug and play. OMS is kind of garbage in its current state, but it's a step in the right direction.
It's really important that people like this are pushing for change. They still remember a time it was different. I don't, i know it was different but i didn't live it. I only live shiternet.
Since I quit Twitter when Musk took over I had forgotten how much I value Cory Doctorow! Edit: Is it ironic that I am watching this video on a website that is owned by google on a browser made by google while running two different adblockers to stop google's new illegal policy of denying service completely if you use adblockers in a web browser?
This is a fantastic solution. If these tech giants are built on open source projects, then those projects need legal protection to stop the tech giants from using them for abusive purposes.
Daniel Kaminsky (February 7, 1979 - April 23, 2021) was an American computer security researcher. He was a co-founder and chief scientist of Human Security (formerly White Ops), a computer security company. He previously worked for Cisco, Avaya, and IOActive, where he was the director of penetration testing.[2][3] The New York Times labeled Kaminsky an "Internet security savior" and "a digital Paul Revere".[1]
I've a bit more experience on you. The paradigm switched from "the internet is life" to "life is the internet". Monolithic systems break down in predictable ways over time, enshitification is just a reframe of the same (but much older problems) that occur under bureaucracies such as socialism.
@@thethan3Brain dead take. Every type of operation requires a bureaucracy. Corporate companies have some of the most inefficient bureaucracies. Example: Health Insurance.
@@heliomachit5651 You are naive or straight up irrational in that line of thought. If you studied history, you'd know what the environment is now, was not always how it was. The issues we face now were predictable and ignored and structural. You don't differentiate between the environment's, for example currency was closer to rational pricing without free loans propping up industry, or regulations acting as barriers to entry, decades ago. As our systems have become more socialized, we have had more problems and more inefficiencies, and it was predictable to anyone who studies the structural failings. The irrationality part comes in because you don't follow the basic rules of logic and reasoning. Making a false dichotomy is sophistry, and a well known fallacy. Its an abuse of the contrast principle, and demonstrates low to none credibility. Corporate companies are a wide generalization, and drawing an incorrect and unreasonble comparison to mislead can suggest deceit. When you look at the inefficiencies with the market today (which is not a free market with rational pricing), its clear it stems from the banking sector bureaucracy and government. You use a lot of condensed fallacy replacing logic. I cannot help but conclude you are out of your mind crazy, and shouldn't be listened to by any rational person, or are potentially being intentionally deceitful or malevolent. If you can't follow basic rational logic, you cannot ever come to find any real truth nor would you recognize it if it was right in front of you. This fundamentally limiting belief system will only work so long as the environment allows, and when times get tough you and your children will have significantly lower chances of survival. You are hopelessly dependent on mendacity. You look at small things in isolation, I look at systems and how they interact in reality. The systems today work because you have a lot of people trying to make it work, but those people are in the minority; and failing/burning out. The more hopeless dependents you have in a system that cannot support them, the higher chance you have something like the Wannsee Conference happen behind closed doors. Notably it wouldn't have been necessary, if they didn't have those refugees hopelessly dependent in the first place. They created a predictable problem with no solution, and when the systems predictably fail you have some event like this happen. Its horrifying because its so predictable with so much literature backing it. Failure to recognize these predictable issues is beyond shortsighted, and naive because the literature is available but you seem to lack the required tools or an iota of effort to educate yourself for your own very survival. We have more information available today than ever. The lack of reasonable response in opposition to these inevitable outcomes ultimately support these outcomes that cause great harm not just for yourself but for others as well. Who would knowingly support any system that causes their own end, be it for themselves or their genetic legacy (children). There are no words to properly convey how moronic that is. Who wants to be the boiled frog.
@@heliomachit5651 idk, the US health industry is pretty efficient at turning sick people’s last cent into a new yacht while dispensing the least care possible
I'm barely old enough to remember dial-up and even I feel like the internet has gotten worse. There is more information than ever, but it is impossible to find. I love using /b/ as a measure of the internet and by now it's mostly bots and bait.
It is even less well known that there is no age requirement for the AARP membership. You can join and get access to their discounts at any age. It is generally worth it, though in exchange for the discounts you get slightly more spam.
The negative comments on this are all so vague and insubstantial, I really wonder if theres some sort of AI based astroturfing going on. Its one thing to see opinions about a video where someone just has a different opinion than I do - but I cant imagine how anyone could find any of this objectionable.
@@einsteinx2 Maybe so, but who's commenting on DEFCON videos who is genuinely that clueless? I reckon with the right prompt to tell chatGPT to sound like a random RUclips commenter you could make some stuff that looks like this. But maybe I'm making the age old mistake of underestimating human stupidity!
I would. I do remember how the internet was, and the problems he identifies are real. However, I also know government is always the least efficient way to get something done. Government mandated and regulated API's? I sure like some of that unicorn blood he's freebasing. In what actual world will any of this actually work as he sees it? In the world that's left after all the "greedy bastards" are sent to the gulag? And, if so, who gets to decide who that is and isn't? Someone that stands up on a podium and starts confidently telling how to exactly fix a major societal problem (any) is someone to listen to with an extreme amount of skepticism. An audience of hackers should be the most sceptical of all.
It's Capitalism Realism. Read it - it's a book by Mark Fisher. Progressive Capitalism is objectionable. Its goals might seem reasonable and laudable (on the surface), but this type of ideology ultimately only serves as a band-aid. Band-aids don't solve problems - they merely camouflage the real problem, while pretending to solve it altogether. This why I always say: was FDR a cool president? Yes. Did he do good things? Yes. Was he the best president the US had in the last century? No doubt. And yet, history will only remember him as "The Savior of Capitalism(TM)" - the same system which we are now REAPING THE CONSEQUENCES of. Because people didn't have enough lucidity or courage to abolish Capitalism when that was a realistic possibility. Now, we pay for that choice. We only demand breadcrumbs, and delude ourselves into thinking that our "totally reasonable solutions" will be implemented under the hospices of a ruling class that would never accept such changes. It's idealism; it's an utopia that will never exist until we abolish this economic system.
Just started but so far getting the vibes of jarion lainers's ted talk on this, if y'all haven't seen it fellas please go watch that, really an incredible talk that just rings so unfortunately true.
This is true revolutionary shit. I'm imagining people in 2030 looking up information about the 2000s and only getting paywalled sources.. Also feel like our generation saw the changing of the guard in terms of information control.. for thousands of years either churches or governments controlled information.. then in the 90s we gained the ability to communicate globally amongst ourselves.. at that point the methods of control had to change, and we are living through this change..
Is it really a change though? Or just a transfer of power? Sure it isn't based around a deity and eternal salvation, but is it really that different? Timespans are shorter, but impacts are larger. Previously you had say, the pope, gurus, kings, queens, etc - swap out the religion/divine intervention with "genius playboy philanthropist" and what has really functionally changed? At least in terms of the consolidation of power, and the ability to wield that power, have things really changed so much? Have the 'landed gentry' really disappeared? Or has the 'land' simply become digital?
for felony contempt of business model I think the way to fight back is to bring attention to the fact that the founding fathers left a check and balance in place intentionally to prevent enforcement of tyrannical laws Jury Nullification people need to stand together and refuse to convict when a law is clearly bullshit or intentionally malicious
Holy shit he's right. But now there's terminology that describes what he's calling out. I saw the warning signs but didn't translate the terminology until now. Edit: 30 minutes in, holy shit, it's painful to see things laid out like that even looking back on it years later. The burden of Knowing!
We all saw the patterns of forums, subreddits and other social platforms beginning to decline after a certain size threshold. This guy went balls deep, thought really fucking hard about about the issue and formulated this fantastic description of the puzzle he put together.
How do you propose regulation being a realistic solution when that regulation is to be enforced by a government that is bought and paid for by the corporations responsible for enshittification? Are you leaving the changes necessary as an exercise to the reader or is that union shirt just for show?
Bingo. This is why an anti-Capitalist revolution is necessary for these kind of changes. The Government will never regulate Capitalists, so long as it's bought and paid for by those Capitalists. We all know that money talks. Abolish Capitalism/Capitalists, and watch the pieces start falling into place.
Companies making content should excluded from distribution and vice-versa. Same with hardware / software, and user services / advertising. And they should only be allowed to interact on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis.
Yes!!! (I need all the audience laughter and applause in the audio to persuade those who aren´t in tech though - they won´t believe it without crowdclout)
One thing that also occurred in the Reagan presidency other than reduction of anti-trust laws was the ongoing de-industrialization of American manufacturing and the rise of Japan
Cory, I wish you would address voting and the gane theory of voting: plurality choice voting is how the oowerful keep us all divided, confused, angry, snd helpless.
Im not sure if it was a wake-up call or abuse, but when my old boss decided to push me to resign, he sent me a list of anonymous accounts from my teammates. Most of their responses were baseless criticisms, though a couple had fair points or even compliments. I still kinda miss that job, even though my growth was stalled for most of my time there
A problem with regulations is seen by me with the GDPR. I'm in the UK. I have a PC running Windows. It works. All of my Microsoft services work. I have an Android phone. It works. All of my Google services work. I'm here posting on RUclips! I have an Instagram account, a Twitter account, a Facebook account. iPhones and Macs are sold over here, all of Apple's services work. Yet there are American websites who are prepared to shut out _an entire continent_ just to avoid complying with laws that _Elon Musk_ has no problem with. Violating the GDPR is that essential to their business model. And they tend to be small news sites and local newspapers and TV stations. I can see their articles on Facebook, but I can't go to their own websites. There is a part of me that wants to see a press conference with a European head of government who, on fielding a question from a news outlet that would rather block the entire population of the country they govern than comply with the GDPR and not only refuse to answer their question, but actually throw them out of the press conference citing why... _You have the nerve to put a question to me when your publication blocks the entire population of my country from reading that response? _*_GET OUT!!!_*_ Not only do you not get an answer, you don't even get to ask the question! _*_LEAVE!!!_*
It is because we all keep using these platforms. I tried to make the Shift, but it sure is lonely over there. Also, RUclips be censoring me and giving me warnings for my Speech lately. PLEASE! CAN WE ALL JUST GO TO A WILD WILD WEST FREE SPEECH PLATFORM? AND I AINT TALING ABOUT X OR RUMBLE WHO DO THE SAME THING AS ALL THE OTHERS!
I like Doctorow and I agree with his analysis but his proposed solutions are naive. Way too many "shoulds" and "needs". Antitrust laws have been ignored for 40 years and he's getting excited that they're finally starting to use them again in an election year? What's to stop them from going back to just ignoring them again after the election? How many times are we going to keep getting our hopes up just to be let down?
The unironic answer is: as long as Capitalism exists. Because so long as it exists, the threat of ""bad regulations"" (or lack thereof) is always lurking behind the corner. There's people with way too much money, and their power cannot be reconciled/dealt with so long as they keep existing. They call us "Radical" Leftists for a reason. Radical comes from the expression "forming the root". We look at the root of the problem, not at its symptoms. What Doctorow proposes here, in my understanding, is to try to cure the symptoms... while ignoring the disease altogether.
@c0ntag10n , have you considered that your criticisms which you make about the speaker's naivete of the solutions may have been exactly what was intended? If not, I'd add that you may find value in background information/reading found in Mises von Ludwig's writings on socialism. Why Socialism? Because it covers in detail all of the important rational problems of 'any' centralized system involving people, that were known in the 1940s/50s (and incidentally remain unrefuted). What you may not have seen are the elements of hegelian dialectic structure, and other aspects found in this talk suggest the speaker is heavily biased towards Marxism, which as a system fails, and soft marxist propaganda nearly always targets psychological blind spots to seek agreement (for its effects in limiting rational thought). The standard play is the hope of what could be outweighs the reality of now, and the detailed changes needed to make it work (which were not touched). The related problematic elements, when recognized provide a different frame on this talk, and its purpose. Cialdini covers the basic blindspots/levers in his book 'Influence', Government officials have publicly recognized the value of his work. 'Psychology of Totalism' by Lifton covers historical examples of brainwashing done by Mao, the elements of which, once known show the danger of certain innocuous elements that most people aren't even recognizing as manipulations but are nearly everywhere online.
@thebearingedge No, what you did there is a corruption of language. 'Innovation' is largely only used in the positive, where minimal harm/risk exists, and you neglect the most important question; innovation towards what goal. If that unsaid goal is enslavement or destruction (which is a common goal when one pushes towards systems that by design will inevitably fail where survival is dependent on those systems) that's pretty important, and claiming that as innovation is just orwellian and evil and pretty clearly shows what goal your headspace is aimed at if that were the case. In regular correspondence, it is assumed that one will use words that have one generally accepted/shared meaning, and those must be used in a correct way. (i.e. Specificity of language. ). You also don't cut off important parts to strawman and put words in other people's mouthes because that is what deceitful sophists do. If you cannot do that, and continue to incorrectly minimize existential risk; you are showing by your actions that you are being deceitful and trying to mislead the gullible, i.e. acting as a malevolent entity. I'm sure that was not what you intended, right?
Ah yes, the evils of... hang on, lemme check my notes. Comparing and contrasting two systems in opposition to each other. Conservatives love to use words like "dialectic" because they sound scary if you only write like you read, instead of reading books
I applaud you guys wanting to un-sh!ttify the internet... it used to be AMAZING in the 90's, and even into the early 2000's... now it's absolutely dystopian.
If everyone who didn't like Facebook and wanted to leave changed their profile picture and badge to the same symbol, and enough of your feed all had that symbol, that might help get the gears going further.
@@margegeneverra5594 If they leave, their friends won't notice them gone because the content will be filled back in via the algorithm. If they stay and protest, and enough people do it, then the platform itself will have a different vibe.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
We are witnessing exactly the same "you can't do what we did to you" with AI: they trained all their AIs without authorization and everyone's data. And now if you try to scrap their data, they will sue you.
And that’s exactly why openai was so quiet for so many years
@@watamatafoyuscrape
Perhaps misspelling and typos are feature not a bug in autocorrect. @@arrell1xyz
Forreal. It's like watching someone clutch the pearls they stole from their neighbors.
Of course we do. It's a logical consequence of applying the basic rules of capitalism to this and other fields. Behaving like this increases profits while keeping costs low and getting ahead of competition. I know it feels quite human, especially if it's communicated and signed by humans in the corporations, but those corporations aren't "evil" or anything - they only adhere to the rules of a system that we collectively accept: free market capitalism. That's why shitting on corporations like Nestlé or Facebook doesn't help. It's just easy and makes you feel like you did something so you don't have to deal with the complicated reality behind it. But, as it always has been, in reality, the system is the problem. All the legislation suggested in the video are drops in the ocean. Better than nothing, but it's not an actual, sustainable solution. Change has to be literally radical, as in: it has to attack at the roots. In the end, after about 170 years of industrialized, unhinged capitalism, time is finally running out. Inequality is more blatant than ever, social instability and social conflicts are becoming more and more dangerous. The climate crisis will make this all even worse, Our current refugee movements and economic problems are nothing compared to this. After all this time, we are actually facing challenges that, if we don't fundamentally change, can realistically overwhelm and destroy human civilization. But even if the worst case doesn't happen, on the way there we can still easily lose things like democracy, or peace.
That quote "five giant websites filled with screenshots of text from the other four" is fucking perfect.
All combed over by lawyers and NLP treated to restrict the minds of the masses.
Tell me I am not wrong in thinking that one site is reddit
@@simonsilence My thoughts too. I think it's these 5:
Twitter, Reddit, RUclips, Instagram, and then Google to collate them all.
Have you ever seen schizophrenic mirrors talk to themselves? 😂
Yes, thanks capitalism 😢
"federal contempt of business model" is a stunningly accurate description of IP law and DMCA §1201
*felony
Cory Doctorow is great at these witticisms that really captures the current state of things
Section 1201 prohibits two types of activities. First, it prohibits circumventing technological protection measures (or TPMs) used by copyright owners to control access to their works. For example, the statute makes it unlawful to bypass a password system used to prevent unauthorized access to a streaming service. Second, it prohibits manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in certain circumvention technologies, products, services, devices, or components.
Section 1201 of intellectual property law makes two things illegal. First, it's against the law to bypass technological protections that control access to copyrighted content. This means you can't break through password systems or other barriers that prevent unauthorized access. Second, it's also illegal to create or distribute tools that can be used to bypass these protections.
@@aaronjennings8385 its not bypassing a password if the user provided it, isn't it ? except that's exactly why they put that law
19:51 "An app is just a web page with enough IP for Apple or Google to send you to prison if you mod it." That is interesting. I never understood the obsession with apps, they typically don't require functionality not already available via browsers and constantly being routed to the app store is a shit user experience. Perhaps that explains the somewhat failed attempt to mold desktop OSes into mobile OSes too.
And now we have the real reason that Reddit killed off all the 3rd party apps.
@@DrEnzyme We always knew the reason dude, it is always about control and revenue, be it from selling our data or showing ads or ideally from their perspective, both
But yeah, "apps as web pages with enough IP" is a quite valuable brain dropping from Cory 👍
The web is bloat
Most Apps if you reverse engineer, you discover they really are mostly lots of webviews anyway.
@@Phasma6969 the web was made for documents, not for applications. The bloat started when AJAX was invented in 2007 (circa).
All because directly exposing APIs was too open for the business that were starting to get too big.
So making single page applications was a way of "jailing" the APIs, everything had to go through the layer of HTML. So now for interop you needed to webscrape data from HTML, its not impossible, but IS a barrier, you increased the cost of interop from almost 0 to something of substation effort, because then when you depend on the flimsy UX changes, your interop might break.
That's why we have a bloated "web".
It was the first attempt at jailing data.
The App was a best answer for jailing data.
Of course they didn't stop there, now we have TPM, and root of trust and crap like the entire system being locked down.
You don't own a computer if you don't own the data and the computing.
I'm a software developer, and when I started my career in 2003, the code of ethics was that the user owned the data, you owned the application, but not the computing or the data.
Nowadays, the user owns nothing. The developer owns nothing. The platforms owns everything, no wonder everything is shit and developers are mere factory workers.
the only reason we're lucky enough to have VLC is because they're based in france. freedom in the US is something we have to pay for.
Bring new meaning to the saying ‘Freedom isn’t free.’
They don't have the same concept of freedom
@MsRubyet hmm, that's true .
If you have to pay for freedom, then you don't have it.
France is more free than the USA. Just sayin.
Totally agree, having given up FB and Twitter about 9 years ago I joined Reddit only to find Reddit is absolutely full of screenshots from FB and Twitter while thinking they are better than FB and Twitter. Social media is nothing but a curse on humanity
Reddit is simply in the process of enshittification, as Digg did before it.
@@vylbird8014 lol @ "in" the process, that's funny.
The moment reddit allowed for video formats, and later the use of tiktok memes it was game over.
@@Afreshio The way it was designed is the cause of it being a reeking shithole, subs, while a good idea on paper very quickly and inevitably turned into echo chambers where opposing sides regularly attack and troll each other, form mobs and spread misinformation. I'm well aware there are many benign subs with good and helpful content there's just far too many echo chambers, and if you've ever seen the types of things that go on in the hidden subs, you'd scrub Reddit from your entire internet history and never log in again.
Reddit has been a circlejerk shithole for a long time. This is nothing new. Only the really niche subreddits have at least somewhat decent communities.
This video is 100% approachable for even non-tech literate folks. This video needs to be passed around everywhere possible.
Professional tech educator here. There is still quite a bit of tech space jargon here. But you're right that it is pretty good overall.
It's just not going to have quite the value for people who aren't willing or thoughtful enough to do some web searches to look up some of what they're hearing.
I'm not sure if he even defined the term "IP." I don't blame him for that, given his immediate audience. But a lot of people still aren't going to know what that is, despite what we may think about its commonality.
I disagree. The talk is clever but not for non tech guys - ite filler with insider knowledge and are mostly for a Peer audience. And you just might be part of that audience
Agreed, I don't know anything about hacking and this was very interesting! That said I heard about Cory from the Srsly Wrong podcast so I think his name is spreading quite fast
maybe a Kurzeget style animated vid is in order@@tantalus_complex
The political content within the speech makes it difficult to appreciate the message. To all speakers, focus.
14:10 - "a computer that runs all the programs except for those that make the shareholders sad" sounds a bit like a description of the current smartphone ecosystem and app stores.
walled gardens
I stumbled upon Cory's twitter when the hacking educators I followed shared his threads. Best follow I ever did on that enshittified platform, everything he writes about is interesting and motivating. One of the ideologues who seems uncorrupted by his blind devotion to his values: still a nice person at the core.
Excellent and optimistic talk!
He is on Mastodon too!
I think he’s primarily on mastodon at this point, the man lives his values where he can
Ever since Twitter has been invaded 1:56 by a Space Karen, truly independent media is back to square one. The Nation Magazine, Mother Jones and other progressive print media had a chance of exposure until Space Karen came along and said the same thing that the Republican appointed Judges on the Supreme Court said : "Money is speech".
I don't know about the rest of you but I don't have the same amount of money that Lockheed Martin has, so despite me criticizing them, people almost never get to hear anything except L.M.'s claims, not my rebuttals.
Oh hello RUclips
his website is a great source for his essays
I too want an internet that isn't trying to squeeze me for everything I've got, The old internet was full of nonsense and bullshit, but at least you could tell them apart.
It's good to see that at least some of the younger generation is being made aware of this. Some of us tried to prevent this inevitable descent into excrement 30+ years ago.
The job ahead of you is going to be much harder to get done, but hopefully there are now more knowledgeable people involved.
SCOTUS is hearing a case designed to destroy the CPFB this session.
My biggest worry in this campaign is the possibility that tech giants just go hard right wing partisan in order to turn this into a wedge issue.
I feel like I walked into the wrong meeting room, but I want to know what's going on (I am a normie). What's SCOTUS and what's CPFB?
@@RiahGreenSupreme Court of the United States, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
I'm just curious: were you one of the ones who "tried to prevent this inevitable descent". If so, what did you do? If not, who was and what did they do ?
@@Mr_Boifriend Yes, but I was a newly hatched junior when we were put on this road, so more observer than activist.
the applause being filtered by the noise reducing software makes it sounds like they're clapping in some strange unified rhythm. bizarre choice, defcon. great talk
The applause when he talked about pivots. Cathartic. Cory Doctorow is the GOAT, love his books and his lucid snark.
what was deleted though
@@realityisfake The audio mix was changed to different mics to pick up the audience's reaction.
@@kayceecheshall2818 heh with the mask on it seemed like he was still talking
There is nothing to fear but fear itself. And look at what they do with their fear. Self sovereignty over our data is inevitable and the EU seems to be leading the way on this
@@realityisfake Someone in the crowd clearly yelled out something, and they chopped it from the audio.
Just: thank you, Cory Doctorow and DefCon. This is pain relief for me to hear in these times.
The Golden Rule: whoever has the gold, makes the rules.
Capitalism: Capitalists control the gold.
Have fun, peasants. And please, do not abolish this economic system. We promise you the """good regulations""" are totally coming! You just wait!
Soviet/Chinese corollary: Whoever rules, takes the gold.
@@anandsharma7430 because in other countries, money and power aren't extremely correlated… lmao 💀
Listened to the whole talk. Breath of fresh air. I’ve been thinking to myself a lot about corporate consolidation, and the poisoning of digital real-estate for startups and small business owners, artists, entrepreneurs, creatives, etc and yeah everything he’s saying about interop is the key. They tinker with our business, then once they’re big enough, they put people in prison for doing the exact same thing.
I'm about the same age a Cory. So I can remember the internet when it was only grey, black and a kind of blue-purple.
Also recall the short period of time between the internet becoming open to people without .edu emails, and the opening up for commercial use.
This was unfortunately concurrent with the 'interactive multimedia' trend of the 90s. So everyone saw the commercialization as a good thing. Who else but tech startups will have the money to do motion video and 3D rendering over dialup?
Nobody was asking what about privacy, what about keeping this open source, what about all the static Doctor Who and cat pages which made up 90%of the non EDU internet.
This was a rally great talk. Sadly I doubt anything will change.
Same as the climate crisis, people with money are making sure nothing slows down the profit harvest.
Yep, and if by some miracle the internet is saved, it will all be for nought, because it'll take a much bigger miracle to save civilisation.
Me too
You believe in the CO2 lie. Which is literally just a way of erasing all of the actual environmental action pre 2000 in favor of selling lithium battery based technologies which creates incredible amounts of pollution including radioactivity and the poisoning of groundwater. The environment is not merely climate and out of all environmental concerns CO2 is the least of your worries. 70% of Chinese water is so polluted it is completely unusable. There is 90% more toxic waste in China then there is storage capacity. Etc etc. the Ukraine war is causing more starvation than “climate change “ you trust the propaganda of the most high level elites in order to sell carbon credits.
Same age, and fully agree…
…and yes, nothing will change - unless we (very different 99% of us) change things together. 👍
Part of what made that era of the internet seem so good in retrospect was the filtering of users, though. To get on you needed to be fairly wealthy (computers weren't cheap) and have very good technical knowledge (Ever diagnosed a PPP connection authentication failure?). So the 90's and early 2000s internet was composed almost entirely of tech enthusiasts from middle-class families. Culturally rather uniform.
The degradation of products and names started well before there was an internet. "Off shoring" production was a legal means to dodge the law restricting businesses from selling their products below cost. Overseas, you can have products manufactured by workers being paid slave wages. When you bring them back, you can sell them dirt cheap. And they are largely worth what you paid.
Offshoring also made the product manufacturers no longer liable for things such as lead contamination Etc.
Almost every product made offshore has lead contamination.. Amongst other things.
Then they got caught rigging the home surface lead testing kits so they wouldn't indicate even on pure lead LOL
@@blaqlabspodcast5816 Yes. Just about any regulation you can imagine that was put in place to protect workers from workplace hazards, and consumers from product hazards, was nonexistent overseas. People complain about the nanny state and the precautionary principle, I do myself, but there are commonsense things should be done regardless of whether there are regulations or not.
It's an ongoing trend for companies to give worse products and services to make more money.
Pretty sad, but Ig we deserve it for not complaining enough. Don't be a Karen towards people who don't deserve, but towards who do!
I've heard about him from xkcd and I forgot he was a real person that existed
"We don't know how to make a computer that runs all the programs except the one that makes your shareholders sad" iOS seems pretty close to this. Companies have tried making computers like this before such as with web books. Thankfully it has never been very commercially successful or it has been easy to override the restrictions.
I would hate to imagine what it would be like if this was the case for all machines
Chrome OS is worse (while somehow also being better by allowing Linux VMs), and Android is getting there (especially Android TV).
Companies have been intentionally gaslighting people into thinking that mobile devices are somehow fundamentally different from plain old computers and they need to be locked down for "security".
Apple has the balls to do this right out in the open by allowing you to install Linux on Macbooks but locking the bootloader on iPads that use THE SAME PROCESSOR.
@@antonliakhovitch8306 chromebooks might actually be one of the other things you might want to look into, all of them run coreboot, all run open source ec firmware, and mrchromebox has been making custom coreboot builds you can flash right from dev mode accessible by entering recovery (esc-refresh-power), then pressing ctrl+d, agree on android why the hell is it so hard to get by without gms and all the bootloader locks and fake "open standards" tied cryptographically to gms
I stand by that Windows 7 was the best version of Windows and every version after it is enshittified.
@@ZarHakkar Windows 7 was the last one that tried to compete with apple by providing some minor semblance of user control. Windows 8 tried and failed to port a touch based mobile system to desktop, and 10+ is just microsoft trying to copy apple.
you can still jailbreak iOS devices, Chromebooks, Android, etc, and "sideload" whatever code you want. There's still malware that manages to attack iOS and Android just fine.
When Cory effectively says "we only know how to make the Turing complete computer that can run any code" he's talking about the hardware layer. iOS and ChromeOS can lock the users down as much as they want at the OS and software layer but the hardware ALWAYS holds the potential for hacking, jailbreaking, malware or other forms of "hostile interoperability"; there is no other kind of computer - that's why people have successfully installed DOOM on ATMs, Ultrasound Scanners, 1998 digital cameras.
I'm 60.
The Internet was better and then it got worse, and then it got better., now it's worse.
mid 80s to mid 90s, mid 90s to mid 00s, mid 00s to early 10s, mid 10s until now... that matching your timeline?
At this rate we should expect better to start in the next 2-3yrs and last for around 7?
I have my doubts... the worst parts of the internet have been growing the whole time, they never really got turned over at any time and now they're too big.
The only problem is assumption that government serves the normal people, instead of just the rich people who own corporations. The EU just passed the digital markets act because Europe lost out on tech sector, so now Europe is forcing US companies to let European companies enter the market.
So I fear most governments aren't very interested on enforcing interoperability, maybe with the international nature of the internet the laws by the EU are enough, but I doubt the American government will follow through.
Reminds me of the early US's very lax attitude to copyright, and refusal to cooperate in international enforcement. It wasn't in their best interests - the country wasn't known for a prolific writing industry, so copyright would just have meant sending lots of money to mostly-European publishers at a clear detriment to American businesses. Then times changed, the American media industry grew - and suddenly the government was demanding strong, internationally-unified copyright laws.
Then they started condemning China for doing exactly what their own country had done.
A really huge, internationally-influential company can be an asset to the country of origin. They may dodge taxes, but they can still export the national culture, collect valuable intelligence, and foster trade relationships that increase the power of sanctions threats. So why would a government want to break one up?
@mx338 You may find some value in Ludwig von Mises essays on socialism (now a book), it provides a rational take on socialism and human action that remains unrefuted almost a century later and is not taught nearly anywhere, at least afaik. The problems apply broadly to any centralized system, and there are groups of people who are actively pushing for socialism despite the unaddressed failures. For example, an offshoot of the Fabian's publicized in their magazine (1890s) the idea of collectively as a group purchasing all the means of production (area by area, through centralization), in real estate, and then passing it to the control of the people over time (nationalization). There can be close comparisons drawn with regard to this strategy, and the ability to print money (i.e. Federal Reserve) coupled with leveraged buyouts of a few players. There's a lot of lost knowledge that was well known in the 50s that is now so hard to find.
The government primarily serves corporations through regulatory capture. This is why we should DEregulate the economy. The United States does not have the cultural solidarity that Europe has to pull off what Europe does. US problems, US solutions. Regulation is the problem here, not the solution.
@@jebediahkerman8245 the only thing corporations like more than regulatory capture is deregulation. Try harder.
Yea right now the eu is doing both good and bad things so its not safe to rely on the gov only
Cory Doctorow is a treasure and should be appointed head of the FCC and then some
I still remember when Google let me search outside of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, PBS.
Also, the Dean effect happens here: I encourage your event to include audience response in your audio, because without it, it seems like he’s having both Howard Dean moments as well as Jeb Bush (please clap) moments
What an amazing talk. I have never heard an explanation of what I’ve been seeing and feeling in tech put in such an understandable and entertaining way before. Wow.
'corporate equivalent of Habsburg jaw' had me in stiches
Unfortunate that the noise cancellation cuts out the "Woo!"s that precede that applause, so it sometimes sounds like he's waiting and asking for applause.
DEFCON and shit audio, name a more iconic duo.
I was trying to work out what was happening there 😅 thank you for clarifying
i'm not even five minutes into this talk and i can already tell it's gonna be a banger. we need to save the net.
Too late kid. TPTB killed it.
@@ftboomer1 never accept defeat
Too late to save the net, like it's too late to save the world. Even if you could save the net, there's not much point if you don't save the world as well, and there's no way that's happening.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is time to bust up these giant corporations which were built with taxpayer dollars. Thank you Cory. You are the best.
Built with taxpayer dollars on the backs of exploited and undervalued workers and a splash of chattel slavery ya mean :p (this is me "yes and"ing you, I'm in agreement)
taxpayer dollars?
Most of them got government subsidies @@mintoo2cool
Thanks, Lex
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🎙️ Cory Doctorow discusses the changing nature of the internet.
01:12 🌐 He introduces the concept of "enshittification," describing how platforms evolve and degrade.
02:32 📉 Doctorow outlines the three stages of platform degradation: good to users, abuse for business, and self-benefit at the expense of users.
08:50 💰 He discusses the final phase where platforms withdraw all surplus and users are left unsatisfied, potentially leading to the platform's downfall.
10:34 🏛️ Doctorow explains how the lack of competition and changes in antitrust enforcement contribute to platform degradation.
14:13 🔄 He discusses the tension between Network effects and low switching costs in the tech industry.
19:22 🚫 Doctorow highlights how companies use IP laws to prevent adversarial interoperability, stifling competition.
21:52 🔧 He outlines the steps to reverse platform degradation: halting consolidation, breaking up tech giants, and enabling competition.
23:47 👏 Doctorow commends recent efforts to challenge tech monopolies, emphasizing the importance of swift action.
24:05 🌐 Interoperability is key to devolving control over technology from giant companies to smaller entities.
24:32 📜 Comprehensive Federal privacy laws with a private right of action are needed to protect privacy.
25:16 🏛️ Laws like the digital markets Act should force Tech platforms to provide APIs for new platforms.
26:50 🧩 Mandatory APIs need to be regulated to prevent cheating while allowing emergency actions.
28:57 💼 Tech Giants need to be incentivized to encourage competition rather than sabotage it.
31:30 🌐 Adversarial interoperability can help prevent companies from Nerfing their APIs.
34:03 📚 Spreading good ideas and taking steps to prevent weakness is crucial in the tech industry.
43:01 🤝 Collaboration and minimizing harm are key principles for the future of Federated open Services.
43:41 🗳️ Political change requires a slow and strategic approach, focusing on primaries and state-level actions.
45:21 🌐 Making tech independence and interop accessible to all is essential.
the irony of an AI generated comment on a video about the great enshitification
@@unicodefox If AI can transcribe and annotate presentations then I'm all for it.
As Cory describes the Luddites, they were not anti-technology, they were anti using-technology-to-steal-people's-livelihoods-and-hoard-the-fruits-for-the-owner-class. He also talks about technology in terms of who it does what to and for whom. If it's used to oppress on behalf of oppressors, then that use is shitty. If its used to help people and those people control how it helps them, then that is good.
The difference is this actually provides utility and function for everyone to more easily understand and enjoy the message@@unicodefox
@@unicodefox the deep irony of accusing a human of being an AI just because they put in some effort
@@unicodefoxWhich AI has done this?
I quit all social media more than a year ago and don’t miss it at all.
You just created a paradox because you have a RUclips account. If you think RUclips isn't a "social medium" then you clearly don't know what that word means.
@@nezu_cc do you follow your friends and post your selfies on RUclips, Einstein?
@@aviira look up the definition of "social media" Einstein.
@@aviira You might not, but plenty of people do
@@lexushing1873 Weaklings...
Advocating free markets and competition, at the same time as “seize the means of computation” is a wild roller coaster…
Revolutionary language without any revolution. 😂😂
😅 For someone who's gung-ho about “seizing the means of computation”, this is a surprisingly status quo approach.
Where's the revolution, where are the beheadings, where are the gulags?
100% I am so glad we have folks willing to fight the legal battles too, while us techies do the constant game of getting things to stay interoperatable.
Did you guys use some sort of sihtty AI noise suppression? Please don't unless it's a last resort, it removes half of the audience's laughs and makes the viewing experience quite unsettling. (It's the same issue with all the videos of the conference)
This is the best delivered and most informed presentation I have seen in at least the last five years, Cory you are a new hero to me.
I'm just fifteen minutes in, and my adrenaline is sky high! Cory Doctorow does not miss a beat, WE. NEED. SO. MUCH. MORE. OF. THIS!
Every time he lectures I feel this way. I wish I could do more to get to the future he describes, it seems like he has thought through all the social factors I'm worried about in more detail than I have, but somehow still maintains a clear, hopeful direction towards fixing them. His books are great, too; and the EFF does great work!
You're just fifteen minutes in, and you're already bored enough to be down in the comments section? :)
I'm all in for this!!!❤❤❤
@@antonliakhovitch8306 I know you're having fun, but I hate to break the news to you: the pause button is a thing!
certified Gutenberg archive being rn
"Milton Friedman, court sorcerer of Ronald Reagan" rotfl... the accuracy hurts
Spying on you from asshole to appetite
Fuck the Chicago school, now and forever.
I'd never heard of Cory until I read Little Brother. Since then I've always been happy to see anything he has to say. One of the most insightful people speaking about tech in the world today
You might wanna read up on what Cory himself thinks of that book (and its sequel) in hindsight (and 10000% less naivety), many years later, in the foreword of the third book in the series - "Attack Surface". Which, funnily enough by the way, seems far less freely available than Little Brother.
I loved that book too but Cory changed a lot...
Still wearing a mask like that shows me just what kind of person he is.
A mask wearer in 2023 is just plain f'd in the head.
Cory is a mask cultist, probably multi vaxxed too.
Great talk! First time learning about the Digital Markets Act. Thanks to the EU for doing a great job regulating tech.
One of the best, information packed talks I've ever seen on defcon, perfectly applicable to both the average user as well as administrators and 'runners.
Ignore the braindead comments, this is great.
@jeffbrownstain if you think this is great, you were clearly not paying attention to the important parts or have a big hole in your education.
This talk provided no value, worse it touches only on surface level issues, as any good politician does, and promotes band-aid fixes that simply will not work. There was much more the speaker could have talked about, but didn't, and what is not said is sometimes more important than what was said in the context of someone who may be trying to mislead others, the speaker has a heavy bias towards Marxism.
The promoted solutions will not change the outcome, because they cannot come to pass, and it was pushed using a deceitful process (hegelian dialectic structure), that does not follow rational logic. The proposed changes will only makes the problems worse but sounds reasonable at first glance because they don't talk about the details that matter. Its counting on fooling people into supporting socialism when they have not been educated about socialism and its fundamental flaws.
Ludwig Von Mises wrote a seminal work that was put into a book, it covers the rational problems of socialism, which remains today unrefuted (almost 100 years later). These same problems broadly described in detail by Mises, apply to any centralized bureaucracy or power structure.
I find it concerning the word choices the author makes, in that they attempt to subvert and psychology prime/associate the only solution being that of violent change (one step removed). Seizing the means of computation for example is a play on 'seizing the means of production', which is found in Marxism, and its various derivatives (communism). What do you think happens when regulatory capture prevents the changes from being made, and you no longer have an effective voice because your elected representatives are not doing their job; that is what he left unsaid but no doubt comes to mind when dealing with legislative changes to most of the population.
When a system has been rationally disproved as being viable, and survival of all is dependent on that system it becomes safety-critical which means you handle it differently based on sound risk-management strategy. Supporters that blindly pushing for a change to a system that will ultimately lead to failure, are effectively seeking destruction for everything that system touches (including themselves) in the hope that what was promised will come to pass; it will not. I will not argue that what he says has some small truth; any true deceit meant to manipulate or mislead will always have some marginal truth woven into it while ever leading you towards an undesirable outcome until you no longer have a choice.
One must always beware people who promote themselves as an authority, especially when they have conflicts of interest or motive.
Deceitful people don't play by the rules, and power should never be given to them, and whether the speaker will admit it or not he's promoting a system that will ultimately fail because the fundamental (known) problems have been ignored. He has enough of a grasp to use the technical word choices correctly so this can't simply be an oversight in my opinion.
TL;DR Accuses the speaker of being a "marxist" for supporting the real creative forces behind capitalism. You've wasted your life worrying about Marxism and academic theories that hurt your feelings, meanwhile phony "capitalists" in suits have performed regulatory capture, gutted the vibrant creativity of our markets, and pushed us towards a world of feudalism / oligarchy.
@@thethan3 He clearly doesn't understand us when he said a livestreamed mass pewing would send users away from the site... We're a generation that looked up chechen war beheadings at 10 years old for fun
@@RT-qd8yl Not what I did at that age, but I did receive a healthy education that was better than most, and as a result I am more aware of the darkness and the seemingly harmless forms it often takes at first glance, before showing its true colors and causing real harm. People who promote lies with the intention to mislead the gullible are often monsters in disguise and don't deserve attention.
Recommending Mises after decrying the speaker for channeling Marx on this topic is like offering a lighter to a man on fire.
I find it interesting that RUclips recommended this to me. Wonderful talk. (I was a script kiddie once, that's as far as I went). To the person at RUclips who hit back by dropping this into the algorithm. Nice one!
Totally, completely on point about the last few decades.
Perfect DEFCON talk considering the Unity situation. We need to go medieval on corporations and have a revolutionary regulation spree
You don't want revolution. That just turns the wheel of pain until we are back at the same point.
These corporations basically want a feudalism situation instead of capitalism. And when we try to stop them, they accuse us of being anti-capitalist. It's infuriating.
Good luck with a populace that so easily swallows corporatist propaganda.
Agree
In medieval times, there weren't really many revolutions. That really started with the American and French Revolution, the age of Enlightenment, an emerging (egalitarian!) idea of nationalism based on individual freedoms and unalienable rights. 1789 - 1918 was THE time for revolutionaries. Maybe a bit longer even if you want to include the Spanish Civil War. 🟥✊ (Edit: Obviously, there were still later ones like the Portuguese Carnation Revolution or the several events in Eastern Europe following the downfall of the Soviet Union. But it's not high times anymore.) In the Middle Ages, you only had some small peasant revolts with no ideological basis, but mostly top-down conflicts that shifted power dynamics in the nobility. Even the early modern age didn't really have any significant revolutions. *_Disclaimer:_* All of the above is stated regarding Western and mostly European societies. I'm not educated on revolutionary practices in medieval America, Africa, Oceania or Asia.
Very lucid and well articulated. Thank you
On the government side, we are actually seeing this now in software procurement. Defense contractors now have to ensure their proprietary, black box software talks to the GOV's open messaging system so anyone can plug and play. OMS is kind of garbage in its current state, but it's a step in the right direction.
"Every pirate want's to be an admiral", interesting framing
It's really important that people like this are pushing for change. They still remember a time it was different.
I don't, i know it was different but i didn't live it.
I only live shiternet.
The wildfire analogy is very good. It's mismanagement by antisocial hoarders.
this is the first thing i've ever seen from cory, even though i've heard the name, and this guy is cool as hell
Since I quit Twitter when Musk took over I had forgotten how much I value Cory Doctorow!
Edit: Is it ironic that I am watching this video on a website that is owned by google on a browser made by google while running two different adblockers to stop google's new illegal policy of denying service completely if you use adblockers in a web browser?
Your ideas are excellent - I hope some of them are acted on! Thank you kindly for your talk, cheers.
Yeah you can tell this recent API drama with reddit really pissed him off
This is a fantastic solution. If these tech giants are built on open source projects, then those projects need legal protection to stop the tech giants from using them for abusive purposes.
I REALLY hope this comes to pass. So glad to see the EFF still doing their thing 💪
Daniel Kaminsky (February 7, 1979 - April 23, 2021) was an American computer security researcher. He was a co-founder and chief scientist of Human Security (formerly White Ops), a computer security company. He previously worked for Cisco, Avaya, and IOActive, where he was the director of penetration testing.[2][3] The New York Times labeled Kaminsky an "Internet security savior" and "a digital Paul Revere".[1]
Thank you for posting this information. I would never have found this on my own.
Ted Kaczynski way
I'm 30 years old, and yes the internet was better when people weren't on it all the time
I've a bit more experience on you. The paradigm switched from "the internet is life" to "life is the internet". Monolithic systems break down in predictable ways over time, enshitification is just a reframe of the same (but much older problems) that occur under bureaucracies such as socialism.
@@thethan3Brain dead take. Every type of operation requires a bureaucracy. Corporate companies have some of the most inefficient bureaucracies. Example: Health Insurance.
@@heliomachit5651 You are naive or straight up irrational in that line of thought. If you studied history, you'd know what the environment is now, was not always how it was. The issues we face now were predictable and ignored and structural. You don't differentiate between the environment's, for example currency was closer to rational pricing without free loans propping up industry, or regulations acting as barriers to entry, decades ago. As our systems have become more socialized, we have had more problems and more inefficiencies, and it was predictable to anyone who studies the structural failings. The irrationality part comes in because you don't follow the basic rules of logic and reasoning.
Making a false dichotomy is sophistry, and a well known fallacy. Its an abuse of the contrast principle, and demonstrates low to none credibility.
Corporate companies are a wide generalization, and drawing an incorrect and unreasonble comparison to mislead can suggest deceit. When you look at the inefficiencies with the market today (which is not a free market with rational pricing), its clear it stems from the banking sector bureaucracy and government.
You use a lot of condensed fallacy replacing logic. I cannot help but conclude you are out of your mind crazy, and shouldn't be listened to by any rational person, or are potentially being intentionally deceitful or malevolent.
If you can't follow basic rational logic, you cannot ever come to find any real truth nor would you recognize it if it was right in front of you. This fundamentally limiting belief system will only work so long as the environment allows, and when times get tough you and your children will have significantly lower chances of survival. You are hopelessly dependent on mendacity.
You look at small things in isolation, I look at systems and how they interact in reality. The systems today work because you have a lot of people trying to make it work, but those people are in the minority; and failing/burning out. The more hopeless dependents you have in a system that cannot support them, the higher chance you have something like the Wannsee Conference happen behind closed doors. Notably it wouldn't have been necessary, if they didn't have those refugees hopelessly dependent in the first place. They created a predictable problem with no solution, and when the systems predictably fail you have some event like this happen. Its horrifying because its so predictable with so much literature backing it.
Failure to recognize these predictable issues is beyond shortsighted, and naive because the literature is available but you seem to lack the required tools or an iota of effort to educate yourself for your own very survival. We have more information available today than ever.
The lack of reasonable response in opposition to these inevitable outcomes ultimately support these outcomes that cause great harm not just for yourself but for others as well.
Who would knowingly support any system that causes their own end, be it for themselves or their genetic legacy (children). There are no words to properly convey how moronic that is.
Who wants to be the boiled frog.
@@heliomachit5651 idk, the US health industry is pretty efficient at turning sick people’s last cent into a new yacht while dispensing the least care possible
I never had a Facebook account, I'm so glad about it!
awesome speech, every single word's true...unshitting of internet is a must do, and NOW!
I really enjoyed this talk and highly agreed on many of the points made during the speech
I'm barely old enough to remember dial-up and even I feel like the internet has gotten worse.
There is more information than ever, but it is impossible to find.
I love using /b/ as a measure of the internet and by now it's mostly bots and bait.
i remember when i wasn't afraid of getting 20 years for downloading unknown crap from limewire.
What is /b/
@@DougDepkeris this question bait? By a bot? From /B/? I wish.
Yup its gone downhill since 2007... used to be fun but then zoomers found it... only way to keep them off is showing them pictures of gore.
bring back stileproject @@ryshellso526
It is even less well known that there is no age requirement for the AARP membership. You can join and get access to their discounts at any age. It is generally worth it, though in exchange for the discounts you get slightly more spam.
The negative comments on this are all so vague and insubstantial, I really wonder if theres some sort of AI based astroturfing going on. Its one thing to see opinions about a video where someone just has a different opinion than I do - but I cant imagine how anyone could find any of this objectionable.
I mean there might be but also people are just that stupid… also AI is usually more coherent lol
@@einsteinx2 Maybe so, but who's commenting on DEFCON videos who is genuinely that clueless? I reckon with the right prompt to tell chatGPT to sound like a random RUclips commenter you could make some stuff that looks like this. But maybe I'm making the age old mistake of underestimating human stupidity!
Hey, some people like shitty internet. 5 websites is probably enough, right?
I would. I do remember how the internet was, and the problems he identifies are real.
However, I also know government is always the least efficient way to get something done. Government mandated and regulated API's?
I sure like some of that unicorn blood he's freebasing. In what actual world will any of this actually work as he sees it? In the world that's left after all the "greedy bastards" are sent to the gulag? And, if so, who gets to decide who that is and isn't?
Someone that stands up on a podium and starts confidently telling how to exactly fix a major societal problem (any) is someone to listen to with an extreme amount of skepticism.
An audience of hackers should be the most sceptical of all.
It's Capitalism Realism. Read it - it's a book by Mark Fisher.
Progressive Capitalism is objectionable. Its goals might seem reasonable and laudable (on the surface), but this type of ideology ultimately only serves as a band-aid. Band-aids don't solve problems - they merely camouflage the real problem, while pretending to solve it altogether.
This why I always say: was FDR a cool president? Yes. Did he do good things? Yes. Was he the best president the US had in the last century? No doubt. And yet, history will only remember him as "The Savior of Capitalism(TM)" - the same system which we are now REAPING THE CONSEQUENCES of. Because people didn't have enough lucidity or courage to abolish Capitalism when that was a realistic possibility.
Now, we pay for that choice. We only demand breadcrumbs, and delude ourselves into thinking that our "totally reasonable solutions" will be implemented under the hospices of a ruling class that would never accept such changes. It's idealism; it's an utopia that will never exist until we abolish this economic system.
Just started but so far getting the vibes of jarion lainers's ted talk on this, if y'all haven't seen it fellas please go watch that, really an incredible talk that just rings so unfortunately true.
"Hapsberg jaw", "touching their nobs" lol this dude is funny
Everyone needs to watch this talk.
THIS is the best talk from DC31.... slightly unbiased opinion
This is true revolutionary shit. I'm imagining people in 2030 looking up information about the 2000s and only getting paywalled sources..
Also feel like our generation saw the changing of the guard in terms of information control.. for thousands of years either churches or governments controlled information.. then in the 90s we gained the ability to communicate globally amongst ourselves.. at that point the methods of control had to change, and we are living through this change..
Is it really a change though? Or just a transfer of power? Sure it isn't based around a deity and eternal salvation, but is it really that different? Timespans are shorter, but impacts are larger.
Previously you had say, the pope, gurus, kings, queens, etc - swap out the religion/divine intervention with "genius playboy philanthropist" and what has really functionally changed?
At least in terms of the consolidation of power, and the ability to wield that power, have things really changed so much? Have the 'landed gentry' really disappeared? Or has the 'land' simply become digital?
China's government, behind their Great Firewall: "Who's 'we'?"
for felony contempt of business model I think the way to fight back is to bring attention to the fact that the founding fathers left a check and balance in place intentionally to prevent enforcement of tyrannical laws Jury Nullification people need to stand together and refuse to convict when a law is clearly bullshit or intentionally malicious
I feel like this says everything that's been on my mind recently.
Holy shit he's right. But now there's terminology that describes what he's calling out. I saw the warning signs but didn't translate the terminology until now.
Edit: 30 minutes in, holy shit, it's painful to see things laid out like that even looking back on it years later. The burden of Knowing!
We all saw the patterns of forums, subreddits and other social platforms beginning to decline after a certain size threshold.
This guy went balls deep, thought really fucking hard about about the issue and formulated this fantastic description of the puzzle he put together.
This guy just became my hero when he called Milton Friedman his arch nemesis!
Amazing talk. Digital Markets Act 25:07 So important, for every kind of service.
One of the best talks I've seen in my life. Really, well done! ^^
This actually gives me hope
That's the spirit, slave. Work will set you free.
I had to laugh during this video. What he said here exactly happened with the Unity engine too (and that just recently)
I've quit a bunch of these platforms. It's all anti-social media.
This speech is incredibly well written and thorough! Thank you!
How do you propose regulation being a realistic solution when that regulation is to be enforced by a government that is bought and paid for by the corporations responsible for enshittification? Are you leaving the changes necessary as an exercise to the reader or is that union shirt just for show?
Bingo. This is why an anti-Capitalist revolution is necessary for these kind of changes.
The Government will never regulate Capitalists, so long as it's bought and paid for by those Capitalists. We all know that money talks.
Abolish Capitalism/Capitalists, and watch the pieces start falling into place.
Weird, there appear to be two copies of this talk on this channel, published on the same day.
Companies making content should excluded from distribution and vice-versa. Same with hardware / software, and user services / advertising. And they should only be allowed to interact on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis.
This man is a treasure trove of information and good ideologies and i could listen to him talk for days.
I'm stealing "felony contempt of business model."
"Felony contempt of business model."
I don't think I've heard a finer turn of phrase in several years at least.
Yes!!! (I need all the audience laughter and applause in the audio to persuade those who aren´t in tech though - they won´t believe it without crowdclout)
One thing that also occurred in the Reagan presidency other than reduction of anti-trust laws was the ongoing de-industrialization of American manufacturing and the rise of Japan
I ended up lifting weights to this, who needs pump up music when Cory is speaking truth to power
Cory, I wish you would address voting and the gane theory of voting: plurality choice voting is how the oowerful keep us all divided, confused, angry, snd helpless.
Im not sure if it was a wake-up call or abuse, but when my old boss decided to push me to resign, he sent me a list of anonymous accounts from my teammates. Most of their responses were baseless criticisms, though a couple had fair points or even compliments. I still kinda miss that job, even though my growth was stalled for most of my time there
A problem with regulations is seen by me with the GDPR.
I'm in the UK. I have a PC running Windows. It works. All of my Microsoft services work. I have an Android phone. It works. All of my Google services work. I'm here posting on RUclips!
I have an Instagram account, a Twitter account, a Facebook account. iPhones and Macs are sold over here, all of Apple's services work.
Yet there are American websites who are prepared to shut out _an entire continent_ just to avoid complying with laws that _Elon Musk_ has no problem with. Violating the GDPR is that essential to their business model.
And they tend to be small news sites and local newspapers and TV stations. I can see their articles on Facebook, but I can't go to their own websites.
There is a part of me that wants to see a press conference with a European head of government who, on fielding a question from a news outlet that would rather block the entire population of the country they govern than comply with the GDPR and not only refuse to answer their question, but actually throw them out of the press conference citing why...
_You have the nerve to put a question to me when your publication blocks the entire population of my country from reading that response? _*_GET OUT!!!_*_ Not only do you not get an answer, you don't even get to ask the question! _*_LEAVE!!!_*
Digg is a warning from history
It is because we all keep using these platforms. I tried to make the Shift, but it sure is lonely over there. Also, RUclips be censoring me and giving me warnings for my Speech lately. PLEASE! CAN WE ALL JUST GO TO A WILD WILD WEST FREE SPEECH PLATFORM? AND I AINT TALING ABOUT X OR RUMBLE WHO DO THE SAME THING AS ALL THE OTHERS!
I like Doctorow and I agree with his analysis but his proposed solutions are naive. Way too many "shoulds" and "needs". Antitrust laws have been ignored for 40 years and he's getting excited that they're finally starting to use them again in an election year? What's to stop them from going back to just ignoring them again after the election? How many times are we going to keep getting our hopes up just to be let down?
The unironic answer is: as long as Capitalism exists. Because so long as it exists, the threat of ""bad regulations"" (or lack thereof) is always lurking behind the corner. There's people with way too much money, and their power cannot be reconciled/dealt with so long as they keep existing.
They call us "Radical" Leftists for a reason. Radical comes from the expression "forming the root". We look at the root of the problem, not at its symptoms. What Doctorow proposes here, in my understanding, is to try to cure the symptoms... while ignoring the disease altogether.
@c0ntag10n , have you considered that your criticisms which you make about the speaker's naivete of the solutions may have been exactly what was intended?
If not, I'd add that you may find value in background information/reading found in Mises von Ludwig's writings on socialism. Why Socialism? Because it covers in detail all of the important rational problems of 'any' centralized system involving people, that were known in the 1940s/50s (and incidentally remain unrefuted).
What you may not have seen are the elements of hegelian dialectic structure, and other aspects found in this talk suggest the speaker is heavily biased towards Marxism, which as a system fails, and soft marxist propaganda nearly always targets psychological blind spots to seek agreement (for its effects in limiting rational thought). The standard play is the hope of what could be outweighs the reality of now, and the detailed changes needed to make it work (which were not touched).
The related problematic elements, when recognized provide a different frame on this talk, and its purpose.
Cialdini covers the basic blindspots/levers in his book 'Influence', Government officials have publicly recognized the value of his work.
'Psychology of Totalism' by Lifton covers historical examples of brainwashing done by Mao, the elements of which, once known show the danger of certain innocuous elements that most people aren't even recognizing as manipulations but are nearly everywhere online.
@thebearingedge No, what you did there is a corruption of language. 'Innovation' is largely only used in the positive, where minimal harm/risk exists, and you neglect the most important question; innovation towards what goal. If that unsaid goal is enslavement or destruction (which is a common goal when one pushes towards systems that by design will inevitably fail where survival is dependent on those systems) that's pretty important, and claiming that as innovation is just orwellian and evil and pretty clearly shows what goal your headspace is aimed at if that were the case.
In regular correspondence, it is assumed that one will use words that have one generally accepted/shared meaning, and those must be used in a correct way. (i.e. Specificity of language. ). You also don't cut off important parts to strawman and put words in other people's mouthes because that is what deceitful sophists do.
If you cannot do that, and continue to incorrectly minimize existential risk; you are showing by your actions that you are being deceitful and trying to mislead the gullible, i.e. acting as a malevolent entity. I'm sure that was not what you intended, right?
no matter what this guy says, systems based on consensus are not force
Ah yes, the evils of... hang on, lemme check my notes.
Comparing and contrasting two systems in opposition to each other.
Conservatives love to use words like "dialectic" because they sound scary if you only write like you read, instead of reading books
Step 1, create a monopoly
Step 2, create scarcity
Step 3, pretend like your monopoly is the only solution to said scarcity
Step 4, profit
I hope. I think something will break far worse before we can execute such a strategy. I hope I’m wrong.
I applaud you guys wanting to un-sh!ttify the internet... it used to be AMAZING in the 90's, and even into the early 2000's... now it's absolutely dystopian.
What an absolute legend.
Cory is an absolute star. Sadly never met him despite our paths crossing a few times. Luckily, he's still alive, so, fingers crossed!
If everyone who didn't like Facebook and wanted to leave changed their profile picture and badge to the same symbol, and enough of your feed all had that symbol, that might help get the gears going further.
Better if they actually left.
@@margegeneverra5594 If they leave, their friends won't notice them gone because the content will be filled back in via the algorithm. If they stay and protest, and enough people do it, then the platform itself will have a different vibe.
Some revolutionary shit glad it's been encapsulated in this talk, love it!