alexhsamuel

What you're describing isn't "search", designed to give me information I asked for. It's a recommendation engine, designed to induce a behavior in me, whose input is the "search term" I entered (plus god knows what other tracking data). The distinction is important: the recommendation engine is designed to get me to buy something (not necessarily what I came to buy), whereas my intention was to buy something (or buy nothing, if they don't have it). Calling this recommendation engine "search" is IMO deceptive.

Maybe if I'm on Netflix to watch what's on, that's fine. But e.g. on Amazon, I find "search" so adversarial that I often close the tab and go somewhere else, or give up.

I need to choose outlets and switches for a new building, and I hope to "smart home" it. I had started to do some reading, and while my experience wasn't _quite_ as gruesome as the author of this article portrays it to be, I generally agree with their sentiments.

Still, I'm not quite ready to give up on computer-controlled automation.

Does anyone know of a reasonably complete guide (web site, book, whatever) that explains this well? What I'm looking for: help choosing components that will work together; not "for dummies"; I'm technically competent and willing to learn some stuff but don't want to make a hobby/profession out of this; doesn't require buying into Google Home, Alexa, or another privacy-hostile system.

Thanks in advance.

Sometimes, when faced with button choices "OK" and "Maybe Later", I open devtools and relabel the latter to "Fuck off" before clicking on it. I used to think it futile, but now I understand that this allows me to dismiss the modal without myself being pushed by a button.

Thank you. I laughed out loud. Also, this is true.

I disagree with the implication that there is anything at all unethical (so that anything else could be "more ethical") about blocking ads.

Definitely not advanced in the sense of, "at the highest level in this topic." Publishers do ask for titles like this, though.

I guess it's advanced in the sense of "not beginner". A typical beginner book might start with ls, cp, and nano and get to hello world around the midpoint.

Many (not all) free software ecosystems welcome non-free participants, as long as these honor certain values.

I do think the app store labeling “Free. Offers in-app purchases” is dishonest. It should read, “Demoware. Requires in-app subscription.”

Then how about banning the word "buy", and any other language that implies the transfer of property? The yellow button in the corner should say "Rent now a restricted right to read for an unspecified duration, which we may later modify... with 1-Click".

Now try imagining those businesses in a world without regulation.

No one has suggested that regulation will produce ethical business. The proposal is to impose regulation to limit the unethical behavior of business, which is something quite different.

> Don't blame the guys whose design products to maximize consumer LTV - they are just doing their jobs.

Mmmmm... how about oil and tobacco CEOs? How about patent trolls? How about actual professional criminals? Where do you draw the line?

Exactly this. It's now "industry standard" to mug people; why should I swear your Hippocratic oath when everyone else is getting rich? Instead of asking developers (the organizations, not the individuals) to mend their ways, we users need to take action to defend ourselves.

- Education. People who didn't use computers in the earlier age of full user agency might not even imagine a world where they fully control their devices.

- Advertising. One should not be allowed to advertise "selling" something without handing over full control.

- Law. Shrink-wrap licenses should be neutered, software patents limited, DMCA abolished; these are legal moats around developers' power.

- Technology. Open software, open hardware, open data, self-hostable services.

- Platforms. It's time to treat software as hostile by default, the way an Internet connection is now de facto hostile. The OS needs to be hardened not only against hackers, but also against developers.

These are vague generalities, not concrete suggestions, and there are huge obstacles to each. Perhaps others have useful suggestions.

So... 4JO? Like a droid name. I suppose this reads better in English than in German though.

Absolutely not! That would be an oxymoron. Someone providing a service is entitled to seek compensation; the amount and means of compensation should be listed clearly next to the service. But it ain't free.

Indeed! My imagination was tongue-in-cheek; we're never going to get that.

What if every restaurant within 50 miles of your home required a jacket to eat (or take out) from there... and also required that you had purchased that jacket from the very same restaurant, at a 30% markup?

The problem isn't the capability of remote attestation. The problem is who's using it, i.e. who's defining what "security" means. As noted above, for a company, "security" often means intentionally inhibiting my freedom, not actually securing anything I care about.

We would benefit from a better public discussion of what "security" encompasses. Else, we risk conflating "what MS wants me to do with my computer" with "preventing hackers from stealing my credit card number".

Imagine a world where you could submit personal information to a company, with the technological assurance that this information would not leave that company... and you could verify this with remote attestation of the software running on that company's servers.