Speaking of enshittification… why just post a youtube video with zero explanation of the content?
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:
Fewer Letters More Letters LTT Linus Tech Tips YouTube channel NAS Network-Attached Storage VPN Virtual Private Network
3 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 9 acronyms.
[Thread #1004 for this comm, first seen 17th Jan 2026, 13:05] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]
I watched the first 10-15 minutes of this and have to say, while I agree with him on principle, he’s either misinformed or exaggerating the anti-circumvention regulation. There are a number of exemptions in anti-circumvention laws in the US for personal use. How far this goes was made clear in court, Apple took the creators of an iOS jailbreak to court and lost, making it clear that jailbreaking is not illegal, even though it clearly circumvents the “protection” system in place. Similar applies to circumventing DRM for backup copies of media, for instance.
Of course, I would rather see no anti-circumvention legislation whatsoever, but the way he misportrays the situation makes me question his credibility.
You’re totally misunderstanding. Cory’s talking about economic damage, not personal jailbreaking.
for personal use
A key part of his argument is that these laws should be repealed so that small companies could legally develop hacks and alternatives. For example a startup could develop (and support) an alternative firmware for John Deere tractors, which they sell to independent tractor repair shops around the world, creating more competition, more options, and cheaper/better services to end users. The “for personal use” version of that is fine for us hobbyists, but prevents similar freedoms from being accessible to regular people.
We should emphasize the John Deere tractor thing to reach a broader audience.
The EFF have a page on this, setting out the threats:
https://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-consequences-16-years-under-dmca
…which is mostly a link to:
https://www.eff.org/files/2014/09/16/unintendedconsequences2014.pdf
…whose summary reads as follows.
The “anti-‐circumvention” provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), codified in section 1201 of the Copyright Act, have not been used as Congress envisioned. The law was ostensibly intended to stop copyright infringers from defeating anti-‐piracy protections added to copyrighted works.[1] In practice, the anti-‐circumvention provisions have been used to stifle a wide array of legitimate activities. As a result, the DMCA has become a serious threat to several important public policy priorities:
The DMCA Chills Free Expression and Scientific Research.
Experience with section 1201 demonstrates that it is being used to stifle free speech and scientific research. The lawsuit against 2600 magazine, threats against Princeton Professor Edward Felten’s team of researchers, and prosecution of Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov have chilled the legitimate activities of journalists, publishers, scientists, students, programmers, and members of the public.
The DMCA Jeopardizes Fair Use.
By banning all acts of circumvention, and all technologies and tools that can be used for circumvention, the DMCA grants to copyright owners the power to unilaterally eliminate the public’s fair use rights. Already, the movie industry’s use of encryption on DVDs has curtailed consumers’ ability to make legitimate, personal-‐use copies of movies they have purchased.
The DMCA Impedes Competition and Innovation.
Rather than focusing on pirates, some have wielded the DMCA to hinder legitimate competitors. For example, the DMCA has been used to block aftermarket competition in laser printer toner cartridges, garage door openers, videogame console accessories, and computer maintenance1 services. Similarly, Apple has used the DMCA to tie its iPhone devices to Apple’s own software and services.
Original source with options for video and audio downloads, independent from YouTube.
Yeah… the very fact this is posted as a youtube video reinforces the point of how far we are from this. The issue is, the enshitified internet is not a technology problem… it’s an education/people problem.
The internet will not be better until people are.
Oh it definatly is a technology problem though. There well never be a federated Youtube for instance. Think about that the storage that Google uses since videos are not really deleted, and the bandwidth to server that much video. It doens’t really scale with federation.
The simple solution is to just… stop using video so much. Video is riddled with problems as a long term human record, doesn’t scale, increases perpetually in requirements without actually improving quality of CONTENT, isn’t indexable or searchable, isn’t easily translated into multiple languages, not as easily shared, not as easy to back up… Text is not obsolete. It was our main method of information transmission for tens of thousands of years, and NOTHING will convince me that it should be replaced as the primary method.
Again, it’s a human problem. If humans accepted text and images again for the majority of information transfer, the problem would go away.
I’ve minimized my short form video consumption and reliance on Youtube for entertainment for this very reason. Podcasts are great to listen to when I’m doing chores
There well never be a federated Youtube for instance. Think about that the storage that Google uses since videos are not really deleted, and the bandwidth to server that much video.
Until there is. Someday someone will create a PeerTube plugin or some other piece of software that will tackle this. I’m thinking distributed storage, automatic mirroring to other instances when more bandwidth is needed for a popular video, voluntary storage donation from clients (got 10GB of expendable storage on your device? Donate it to the network), or something I can’t even think of. There are so many possibilities in this space. I won’t accept that it’ll never be possible.
No, the logistic problem Google “solved” in making YouTube functional and free was born from a time when dumptrucks of VC money made it viable. It will never happen again, regardless of innovation.
This is not a technical problem, and in the case of the YT monopoly, it’s beyond even a people problem. Google got the money, and google won. It will be very difficult to unseat them.
Peer to peer could solve the hosting/bandwidth issue. Just federate the network/index/front end for torrent-based streaming. Impose some ratio requirements for access and it’s infinitely scalable
People per se are lazy (not derogatory) and will almost always use the path of least resistance, unless there’s something to gain. And most people don’t notice any negative influence on their lives from these data-grabbing platforms
You’re so right! I use a VPN, Linux adblockers as much as possible and various other privacy focused technologies and my partner just thinks I’m paranoid.
They love that their instagram algorithm can serve them highly personalised clothing ads 😆
Sometimes I wonder if I fail my spouse with not convincing her to privacy, or I let her make her own decisions
I have this issue. I have also explained that everyone she communicates with didn’t consent to having their communications intercepted by other parties.
I’d argue if you took the step of explaining some privacy concerns with her existing internet activity with her, and after that conversation, they decided against taking precautions, it’s just their decision to partake in the system.
With that being said, you should take precautions for your own personal devices and things such as appliances/IOT if you are privacy conscious and want to protect the household from leaks.
