Login
You're viewing the discuss.systems public feed.
  • 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

Replies

  • 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
  • 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
  • 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