@mcc None of this is to safeguard us, it’s to safeguard *their money and power*.

I can see signing things and all sorts of things being good things, if they are collectively own.

But that’s not what this is about:(

@mcc I see plenty of flashbacks to the arguments over the standardization of EME.

They promised us that CDM vendors would license to independent browsers including new ones, that didn't happen once the spec became a W3C Recommendation!

@mcc google is making it impossible to have free will.
They do their very "best" to make it impossible to go elsewhere to get apps.
I use uptodown but many of the apps I would need (infinite painter or infinity design the pro version) can only go through google.

I definitely feel the same about them... their "don't be evil" motto has gone south and sour...

@mcc THIS

I keep seeing people excusing oppressive technologies by pointing out the safeguards, or trying to find a "compromise" for whatever reason (sometimes it's doomerism that corporations will get what they want so we must stop resisting)

There are no safeguards and no compromises when it comes to user agency. If it's not carved in silicon, it's just a pinky promise, and we must not accept even the legitimate promises. They are in the wrong, and they must lose. Don't give them anything, because the slope is slippery and we have precedent to show it.

I've seen very smart people make this mistake before. Phones are the testbed for treacherous computing, and some people have been defending that despite the death grip tightening quickly.

Now TC is finally making a comeback on PCs, and people are defending its flaky safeguards and trying to refocus on some benefits that could be achieved through non-oppressive means. It will lead us the same way.