Businesses will do what businesses will do, but it seems to me having something to point to and saying "do this instead" is more effective than "this sucks and isn't even about security, don't do this at all" even though it's true.
Businesses will do what businesses will do, but it seems to me having something to point to and saying "do this instead" is more effective than "this sucks and isn't even about security, don't do this at all" even though it's true.
Solving proof of humanity is very difficult without tying to some kind of difficult to replicate or automate ID.
Sucks that they have a hard problem like that. Taking away everyone's freedom to exercise ownership of their general purpose computing devices and destroying online anonymity shouldn't be the answer (or, at least, we shouldn't stand for it). Maybe they can spend some of their billions in revenue on it.
... are not problems, no - but bots in general are
The anonymous internet is going away -- it is too supportive of crime and various kinds of gray area misconduct, and governments and large corporations were eventually going to do something about that.
Such a degree of anonymity is desirable, but it is not a requirement for a free society. What were things like before the internet? You couldn't anonymously browse billions of pages of information in 1960.
China has all the tech giants jumping through whatever hoops they want by banning them by default and only allowing whichever ones they want to operate after they meet their strict policies and ad hoc decisions.
Now that the US has decided the EU is a rival, the EU should do the same.
Ideally there shouldn't be standards for this. What we have already is enough.
Companies claiming they are closing down their services/devices to protect the users is total BS. Facebook has admitted they get 10% of their ad revenue from scams, and that's the reason they won't go after scammers on their platforms.
Same can be said for Google. They could come up with numerous ways to block bots or make captchas harder for actual bots (while also not flagging every non-Chrome user as a potential bot, like they do nowadays), but they pretend this is an unsolvable problem that requires a nuclear solution, it used to be Web DRM but now it's called Fraud Defense.
If the only argument you can make every time someone proposes an onerous, privacy-destroying solution to this problem is deny the problem exists, you're going to lose.
GP is correct, we need an alternative we can point to.
Failed to mention this but part of the reason for this is that even after getting past CAPTCHA and creating an account, spam bots in online communities have always had to pass a sort of informal ongoing Turing test to not get outed as a bot by human users and banned. In the past, that would happen almost instantly as soon as the bot posted anything. Now they can often go undetected by even human mods for a long time, maybe even indefinitely.