The god argument can’t be contradicted because it’s not based on logic. People can just make up rules for their gods, and they usually don’t care if those conform to reality or logic as we know it.

E.g. I can just say that logically disproving my god is a proof of its godhood, because it defies and is beyond human understanding. That’s just not something you can argue about.

No.

Imo the more you think about it the more you realize that “god” is just a very human way to cope with feeling lonely or powerless, and life having no ultimate direction or purpose. People imagine a friend or guardian who has a plan and will set things right, and some use this shared fantasy to make others do what they want.

Yea it would be a pretty radical change, requiring adjustments in many areas. But I do think it’s necessary, because people not being personally invested in the things they own (just financially) and profiting from other people’s work is imo the big problem with our society right now.

Companies would work the same way. You can own it (make decisions and get profits) as long as you work there. Ofc you can work for multiple companies, but with reasonably restrictions (e.g. 8 companies if you work 40h/week and 5h/week/company). I also think companies should not be able to own other companies, because companies cannot be “personally” involved in anything, only people can.

I think you can invest in things, but that shouldn’t give you any legal ownership rights.

I also think it should not give you any profits, just the ability to protect your assets from losing value over time (inflation, decay, wealth tax, …). This way people could either start something themselves and make a profit, or invest it somewhere else to try to preserve the value. What they couldn’t do is invest and profit from other people’s work.

I know this is pretty radical and would definitely need many changes to the way we do things right now, but I strongly believe that decisionmaking and profits should be reserved for the people actively involved in something. If you want to work with companies you don’t run then get payed as an advisor or associate, because that is the work you would be doing.

We have blown the concept of ownership way out of proportion. No one should be able to own things they have absolutely no connection to, like investment firms owning companies they don’t work for, houses they don’t live in or land they’ve never been to.

Imo we need to be able to differentiate between bot posts and comments. Posts can often be spamy, but comments are almost always useful.

That’s not part of this spec, all it says is that the attester produces a cryptographic proof. What it checks and what that proof means is for the attester to decide.

Google and Apple say they would “just” check if the user is logged into their Google/Apple account, as a way to proof that they are human and not a bot. That would be bad enough, because you should not have to have an account with these companies to browse the web. But they could easily make it even worse, by requiring you to install a kind of anti-cheat software that scans your device, and only provide the proof if they like the results. Heck they could just exclude everyone who visited a certain website in the past or who’s name starts with an F if they wanted to, because that’s how broad and dangerous this proposal is!

Big companies should not be able to decide if people are allowed to visit certain websites or not, even if they say they have the best intentions.

You know, most major web servers are open source projects (Apache, nginx, …). They could in theory decide to check for the browser that’s accessing a website and just return an error If it’s a variant that supports WEI. Ofc people could fork them and remove the check, but many might just use them as is.

Just a thought though, this would be a very radical and hugely controversial step.

Profile/Lemmy icon in the top left corner -> add account.

The details are a bit different. PATs use HTTP headers during a request while WEI is a JS browser API. But otherwise the general structure and end result are the same. A website requests an integrity check, an attester checks your device, and if the attester doesn’t like your device then you’re SOL.

Apple already added basically the same thing about a year ago: https://blog.cloudflare.com/eliminating-captchas-on-iphones-and-macs-using-new-standard/

I’m sorry to disappoint you, but this is basically the same thing: https://blog.cloudflare.com/eliminating-captchas-on-iphones-and-macs-using-new-standard/

I think one difference is that the rate of change in chat apps has slowed down dramatically. When was the last time one of the major apps added a new feature you can’t live without anymore? So it might be easier now to keep up.

Apparently it’s based on matrix bridges, and you can self-host it if you want. Sounds intriguing imo.

Same. But I also worked as a dev for an online advertising company, and conversions are everything to them! If this causes 5% more users to not close the tab because of a captcha check, then every last one of them will want to have this.

Although if there was an alternative and easier way to prove that I’m human on the internet, without harming my privacy or allowing someone to arbitrarily block legitimate users (like this proposal), then I would be all for it. The problem here is that the checking standards and process would be in the hands of a few companies, so they could check for much more than just that.

I think your and their definition of “trusted” is a bit different. They mean trusted as in “very likely a real human”. That’s not enough to allow any privileged access, but it should help when trying to block bots heuristically while preserving a good experience for real users. “Trusted” devices could skip capture checks for example.

Of course this doesn’t make this proposal any better, it’s still extremely dangerous and misguided imo!

I guess something like: Skip capture if it succeeds, show capture if it fails. It would allow people to skip capture checks most of the time.

To be clear, this doesn’t make it ok!