Login
You're viewing the discuss.systems public feed.
  • josefjk@mastodon.social
    Oct 14, 2026, 2:40 PM

    personally i don't understand the arguments because my main heuristic is that if a corporation is putting effort into making you do something, it's probably for their benefit and not yours. they can make the thing extremely technically complicated, and then explain it to you in a way that makes it sound like a good thing, and you can choose to believe their explanation, and they MIGHT not be lying to you. it's a risk i'm not willing to take, though. it depends on your tolerance for being a mark

    💬 5🔄 9⭐ 22

Replies

  • YOUR::L0CAL::DÆMON :catte: :asexual_flag:cyberquixote@infosec.exchange
    Oct 14, 2026, 2:41 PM

    @jk i appreciate that the conversation can be had, since we’re all conditioned to accept systemized thinking.

    it’s refreshing, and needed. it will probably bother some people, and that’s ok because sometimes we all need a little shakeup.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 1
  • Bò búnny 🐇bobunny@piaille.fr
    Oct 14, 2026, 2:56 PM

    @jk

    > if a corporation is putting effort into making you do something, it's probably for their benefit and not yours

    If in that process they contribute to the commons (through ideas, standards, free libraries) and embrace (or at least don't actively fight back) interoperability which allow other to implement something similar, to switch providers, and to be resistant to enshittification, then I don't see any issue.

    If not yes I agree with you, trust shouldn't be the foundation of this type of contract, *especially* when involving a for-profit driven corporation.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 1
  • joepie91 needs more railing (🔜 eth0)joepie91@slightly.tech
    Oct 15, 2026, 1:00 PM

    @bobunny @jk the problem there is that "embrace [interoperability]" is the first word in "embrace, extend, extinguish", basically.

    you have to remain cognizant at all times of the power dynamics involved, and that if someone can change the rules without your agreement at any time once they've wormed their way into something, which is *usually* true for such corporate 'contributions', it just doesn't matter how legitimate their initial contributions appear to be.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • josefjk@mastodon.social
    Oct 15, 2026, 1:03 PM

    @joepie91 @bobunny yeah, i feel like these people are always trying to do some deal with you, to get you to agree to terms that aren't in your best interests. if you just straight-up believe what they say and immediately go along with it? that's extremely lucky for them. you didn't even try to haggle, or assert your own end of the bargain. it's like they just waved a piece of paper in your face and you signed it without thinking!

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • FoolishOwlfoolishowl@social.coop
    Oct 15, 2026, 3:17 PM

    @jk @joepie91 @bobunny Yeah, I've read about the theory, and it makes me dislike passkeys even more. "Users are too stupid to be allowed to make decisions" is a bad theory.

    Maybe stop enabling authoritarian police states you assholes.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Dale Pricedale_price@mastodon.online
    Oct 15, 2026, 12:39 AM

    @jk Corporations made me set up passwords for all their services in the first place though. And most of those corporations have abused that already (stored them in plain text, leaked them, obviously failed to educate the general public about the risks that using passwords exposed them to, and shifted blame onto the victims of password cracking and phishing). I think a lot of people just look at the cons of a new thing while ignoring the cons of the existing thing.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0