69

Does anyone else feel as if it's over when it comes to really owning your own things?

As of now:

  • You don't have the option of having a phone with decent specs and replaceable parts
  • You have to have really good knowledge in tech to have private services that are on par with what the big companies offer
  • You have to put up with annoying compatibility issues if you install a custom ROM on your android phone
  • You cannot escape apps preventing you from using them if you root your device
  • Cars are becoming SaaS bullcrap
  • Everything is going for a subscription model in general

And now Google is attempting to implement DRM on websites. If that goes through, Firefox is going to be relegated to privacy conscious websites (there aren't many of those). At this point, why even bother? Why do I go to great lengths at protecting my privacy if it means that I can't use most services I want?

It sucks because the obvious solution is for people to move away from these bullshit companies and show that they actually care about their privacy. Even more important is to actually PAY for services they like instead of relying on free stuff. I'm not optimistic not just because the non privacy conscious side is lazy, but because my side is greedy. I mean one of the most popular communities on lemmy is "piracy" which makes it all the more reasonable for companies not to listen to privacy conscious people.

I wouldn't say that this is the endgame but in this trajectory, privacy is gone before 2030.

(page 2) 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] nottheengineer@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Agreed, I'm currently moving my digital life to free software to escape that bullshit.

While everything else seems to be caught up in enshittification, free software is constantly improving.

[-] bumbly@readit.buzz 0 points 1 year ago

Things aren't as bleak in Europe :)

[-] tocano@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

Unfortunately, we still suffer a bit. A lot of internet content originates from USA and the rest of America. And the big tech companies, who control a lot of the market standards, are also from there.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] kostel_thecreed@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago

Wouldn't google's DRM be considered a monopoly? Not in the US, but don't they have laws and regulations against this type of stuff?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Technology creates fiefdoms where rentiers extract value from the rest of us. But I’m not losing hope

[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Don't blame technology; blame capitalism. Technology could equally well be used to benefit everyone, but doing that doesn't vastly increase the personal wealth of the already wealthy.

[-] dingus@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

This is exactly it. Free Open Source Software aims to benefit everyone, but the downside is that it has mostly benefited private corporations who leech off of the free labor of the FOSS community. Capitalism ruins fucking everything.

[-] DRS_GME@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

Graphene OS does a great job of protecting your privacy. Although, since it doesn't rely on google services, unless you want to sandbox some, most of the time you don't get push notifications. Which isn't that bad.

And in terms of actually owning things, instead of relying on subscriptions services, that's what Web3/NFTs are trying to solve. Despite the fact that everyone loves to shit on them, and they're in their infancy, their utility far exceeds overpriced pictures. Right now you have to indefinitely subscribe to Netflix or Prime to access movies and shows you've already paid for, but if you bought an NFT of the movie, no one could gate keep that media from you. Musicians could cheaply disburse their songs to people and not be price gouged by Spotify, and any digital asset you bought would truly be yours, including video games and their skins/weapons/pets/etc, with the ability to resell those as you saw fit. As well, there would be an incentive for the studios that create this media to make them into NFTs, because unlike with physical copies, they would make a cut of every single sale that happens. So, they'd make money on the initial sale, and then a cut of you selling to a friend, your friend selling to someone else, ect.

What I think it, ultimately, comes down to is people getting, too, complacent and just accepting any ToS that's thrown in their face, because they can be dozens of pages long, and we just want to use the service right then and there.

[-] ScrimbloBimblo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

+1 for GraphineOS, but I can't get behind NFTs. The technology is cool, but for me, the definition of "owning" something includes not only the ability to view it, but also the ability to modify it. If I own an NFT of a song, then I could listen to the song, but I still couldn't, say, make a remix of it, which for me is the entire point of owning it in the first place.

[-] Turkey_Titty_city@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

digital anything was never a thing you owned. it's a thing you lease.

if you want to own things buy physical copies.

no idea what you are on about the phone. I buy moto phones for like $150 unlocked and they are great.

[-] dingus@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Data is a physical object. Change my mind.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
69 points (96.0% liked)

Privacy

32492 readers
367 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS