Hacker News Reader

Comment by dangrossman | Hacker News Reader

Not having cheaters ruin my online games is an improved user experience.

Are you being glib, or do you genuinely believe the OS should subvert its user to appease a different group of people?

For many artists, not having their art copied would be an improved user experience, so should the OS prevent you from copying files tagged as copyrighted? Windows Defender already removes torrent software and gives scary warnings for LibreOffice [1] so it's not a big step.

[1] https://baronhk.wordpress.com/2021/09/13/microsoft-defender-...

I'm choosing to install anti-cheat software into MY OS, on MY hardware, to improve MY gaming experience. The OS isn't subverting anything by allowing me to do that. I can't see how that's anything like your hypothetical. The anti-cheat software isn't being rolled into Windows for everyone in the globe, it's part of a voluntary, user-directed game installation on a specific computer.

If it's voluntary, then obviously cheaters are not going to install it. You choosing to install the anti-cheat software on your own computer will not magically stop people you play with from cheating. Therefore your whole argument goes out of the window.

It’s voluntary as installing the game is voluntary. You can’t opt out of the anti cheat tech yet opt into playing the online game. One might disagree with a part of the product (the anticheat part) but then one has to choose not to buy or use the product at all. It’s voluntary.

This is not a case of the OS subverting it's user, the user is installing Riot's anticheat of their own will. If you'd like Windows Defender to stop that, then you should be fine with the warnings it gives with those other apps too.

But that's just it - Riot's anti-cheat gets far fewer warnings than FOSS software, because MS has tilted the system to favor corporate entities willing to pay MS for certificates.

If a "trusted developer" is one of the heuristics, then any kind of honest anti-virus should trust major free software developers/apps to at least the same degree as someone like Adobe or Riot.

What about communities of gamers and hackers who get their fun in environments where everyone spends their time hacking away at game code to use against each other? This is pretty common in many Minecraft servers, for example- hundreds of people developing the best cheats to use against opposing factions in said communities.

Those people don't play on the same servers as regular players.

I'm sure you don't want Apple allowing people to have illegal images on their phones, are you willing to have all your photos constantly scanned to improve that?

I don't see how this is related. I'm installing a game with anti cheat software on my computer to improve my experience. This is my choice, my hardware, and is for my own benefit.

It really isn't when you're forced to install the anticheat software to play the game. The corresponding phone analogy would be saying that it's "your choice" to have your pictures scanned for CSAM, because you made the choice to buy apple instead of a pinephone or whatever.

The anti-cheat code is an integral part of an online game. I can choose not to install and play that game if I don't want the anti-cheat code on my computer. I can't choose not to run iOS on an Apple phone. These are not analogous situations.

So you draw the line at hardware/software? Why there? Can you not treat iOS as a bundle of software + hardware?

Obviously you haven't played online video games.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com