I apologize. The reply you responded to was entirely satirical. It was written in frustration. From my point of view passkeys are the way to do authentication. More specifically public-key cryptography. It has a lot of desirable qualities. Governments and ‘tech platforms’ should have been using it from the start–we’ve had the software to do this since the 1980s and it was libre-software by the 1990s.

Any criticism of passkeys (as brought up in this thread) are more so applicable to the private-dictatorships that are Microsoft, Apple and Google. The contrary behavior of continuing to use these private-dictatorships whilst decrying passkeys is tantamount to hypocrisy? stupidity? To give a tiny bit of context: the quality of attestation in passkeys are also applicable to SSL-certificates, yet no one is decrying SSL-certificates. It’s also applicable to every GNU/Linux distribution and libre-software at large.

That’s to say the criticism is written from a place of ignorance. “Privacy” forums on the internet are not interested in reality. Their users are full of users with static behaviors. More often than not any questions asked in these places amount to “how can I continue doing what I was doing before? Big-corp has introduced a change I don’t like. I want to do the exact same thing on big-corp that was previously permissible.” When the factual observation is stated: “big-corp is a corporation designed for surveillance-capitalism therefore if you desire liberty and privacy whilst computing you cannot use such a corporation in any manner” it’s met with unfounded hostility, hypocrisy and lies. Any use of such software is contrary to your stated desire: digital-privacy. Even when responses illustrate how you could achieve what the OP wanted, but with libre-software and privacy-preserving-software you’re often met with: “no. I want to use Google/Microsoft/et al.” Users are lazy idiots.

Technical and correct responses are ignored whilst a flood of ignorant, emotional or status-quo enforcing responses are brought to magnified attention. I’ve abandoned restraint and started to shitpost as every one else appears to be doing.

I suppose this is all a criticism of ‘social-media’ and how it’s a waste of everyone’s time.

What’s capitalism?

Google does this: “wow best thing ever look at the cranks getting upset. No privacy in public places. Thanks Google.”

Amazon does this: “wow worst thing ever–they’re not even letting me look at the data.”

Daily reminder: you’re sharing a video hosted on YouTube. Inconsistency and lack of logic will get us to privacy one day. Keep at it gang! Chins up! Port paddle in reverse! Starboard paddle straight–we’ll get there in no time! Such enthusiasm!

Correct: Americans are normally obese.

No, I’m not assuming people are using a Google wallet.

Most businesses only release an android package via Google’s PlayStore. (“Download our app via PlayStore.”)There’s no reason a bank couldn’t host their .apks on their website (if you’re unfamiliar with the .apk extension imagine it’s a .exe: you click on it and a program runs; an .apk is to Android what an .exe is to Windows). To download packages from Google’s PlayStore requires a Google account. Google demands a few things from these two parties: publishers need to pay Google a fee to have their .apk hosted by Google and users need to run Google’s spyware in order to access those .apks hosted by Google.

It’s often stated that if you want digital-freedom/privacy use GrapheneOS (if you have a compatible Android-device) or use a linux mobile-phone. To which most users respond: but my bank app doesn’t work on those platforms, therefore I won’t use either GrapheneOS or a linux-phone.

The bank app won’t work, because Google’s spyware is not included in GrapheneOS (a point of GrapheneOS is to avoid such spyware). Because GrapheneOS (or linux) doesn’t include Google’s spyware Google will do its best to block such devices from accessing Google’s PlayStore. Such computers are violating Google’s demands: if you want access to the PlayStore you have to run Google’s spyware.

Even if you were to get the appropriate .apk by avoiding Google directly (perhaps a friend who got it from Google then passed it to you) the bank’s .apk would fail to run on a device free of Google’s spyware, because you’re not capitulating to Google’s demand: you didn’t get it from Google’s PlayStore and the ‘app’ knows that by the lack of Google spyware. (Google’s spyware and the bank ‘app’ talk to each other. If the app can’t talk to Google’s spyware it will halt.)

Therefore if a bank only has an ‘app’ to interact with that bank is saying: you have to download it via Google’s PlayStore–which necessitates a Google account and running Google’s spyware. Therefore if you want to use banking ‘apps’ you need to enable Google’s monopolistic, spyware practices (you have to enable the corporations to practice surveillance-capitalism). Google defends this practice often with security-theater (“Google says it must be done this way for security.”) when in reality it’s about entrenching a market monopoly.

This is absolutely removed and I do deride users who say they want computing-liberty and -privacy, because there are banks who still have usable websites. You don’t have to bank via an app. If you do bank via an app you do so with full acknowledgment that: a) you’re rewarding anti-competitive behavior; b) you’re entrenching Google’s monopoly over Android; c) you don’t actually want computing-liberty or -privacy.

It’s piss easy to change banks. It’s impossible to stop Google. If you want privacy you have to ditch Google, which means banking with a bank that allows you to bank via a desktop-computer (via a website) or in-person through bank-branches. If the only way to bank with your chosen bank is via an app that then means the only way to bank with your chosen bank is by enshrining Google’s monopoly into your life.

Passkeys are a completely separate thing. They’re an increase in security for all users. Users are frustrated by ‘big tech’s’ increasingly monopolistic practices and instead of doing anything practical (like not running those particular pieces of software) they’ve latched on to decrying passkeys, which the majority of the commentators are actually clueless about. They’re just seeing those ‘big tech’ companies forcing yet another change onto them. They’re lashing out against their lack of power. They’re lashing out against their subjugation by ‘big tech’. That they’re being forced to use “passkeys” when they don’t even know what a passkey is.

Passkeys are an open standard. They’re not entrenching anyone’s monopoly. Increased security is desirable by all parties (corporations, governments and individuals). Passkeys enable that. You’re not locked into Google’s Android, or Microsoft or Apple. People are under the assumption they are however.

I could host my own website using passkeys as the method for authentication. No big-corp involved. Offline. Spooky. Big-passkey is coming for you.

That probably left you with more questions than answers…

People aren’t having kids. Without kids who will play the video-games?

It’s something you pass around–like a word, but a key instead. If you’re familiar with passwords–instead of a word–imagine a key: a passkey. That’s what passkeys are. The issue with passkeys is–as you pass them around they begin to open more and more stuff; everyone is opening stuff with your key as it’s passed. So they need to be sanitized every now and then. Deposit them into a furnace and buy a new passkey. Every two to three days. If you have more questions please feel free to ask!

That’s how they work, regardless of how users think. Though you’re correct: the majority of computer users don’t understand what they’re doing and do feel threatened by change, even if that change is positive by any measure other than “I feel uneasy about changing something I have no grasp on”.

This is already the reality without passkeys. The correct response is to bank with a bank that isn’t enabling Google’s monopoly. Pretend passkeys don’t exist–nothing’s changed. You still can’t use your bank’s app without a Google Account if your bank is an enabler of Google’s monopoly. So… again, myopic dimwits are getting angry at something, but don’t know what. They’ve latched onto passkeys though. Amusing.

Consumers are pent up and lashing out at passkeys. It’s wild. Like, you all still want to use the dictatorial software that is YouTube, Google and Microsoft, but passkeys are the hill to die on? lmao “No! How dare you provide cryptographic security!”

It’s wild seeing people spaz out over passkeys, clearly venting at something that isn’t passkeys.

But at what cost? U_U

But the Americans have the world’s largest prison-population; but the Americans built a country through slavery; but the Americans are bombing children; but the Americans are fighting amongst themselves and the American empire is in death throes; but the Americans are starting another war; but the Americans are backing a genocide; but the Americans are pedophiles. Jeez America, at what cost? But at what cost?

lmao

The Russians made me do it mum!

Are the Russians in the room with us now?

Wait… wait… you believe Facebook?

It’s standard operating practice to steal everything. The world’s full of dumb fucks.

It’s in the planner. Prefer to be a little proficient before visiting though.

I hope they’re employing a lot of talented mathematicians.

I can imagine a scenario where a machine spouts out information, only for it to be indecipherable to the controllers. Human-analysis is required to prove that it is or is not true and that can only be done at human-speed, whilst the machine creates at hyper-speed. It’s more costly to refute nonsense than it is to create.

It could also be perceived as provoking free-labor from specialized individuals.

I am clueless about mathematics though so I’m just creating more nonsense. I feel a bit morose. It’s as if the whole world is just talking about computers, whilst the natural world dies.

Let’s state plainly: the title is false. I use lemmy; you’re using lemmy; the other commentators are using lemmy.

There’s a concept I’ve been mulling over for a while–and economists probably have a term for it of which I’m ignorant of–that is that free software fails in capitalist market economies. I expect that statement to create a knee-jerk reaction. The truth is free-software is everywhere and as computers become ever more embedded into our economies free-software’s presence will only grow exponentially. It’s often the foundation for computerised economies.

Free-software enthusiasts understand that its become endemic to the economy. However businesses and consumers still ignore it even when it might be prudent to select or fund free-software. To ignore it seems contradictory to a lot of ideals. A capitalist business should use free-software as the monetary cost is zero: it’s a free product. Revolutionary organisations should adopt free-software is it aligns with their ideologies. Yet we know they don’t. These actors are acting irrationally.

Free-software lacks something that is a prerequisite to participate in an economy: capital. It has no money to propagandise itself. To phrase it another way: it has no money to buy ads. Without ads it doesn’t exist to entities who do have capital.

In Australia Reddit brought ad-space inside shopping-centers. Commercial software has revenues from which a portion can be spent on advertising and its through this advertising that growth can occur. The reason why lemmy has a small user-base is because it has no revenue streams. It’s an economic sink.

If we were to imagine that the user-pool was to dramatically increase what would actually occur? I imagine many instances would be overwhelmed with traffic, knocking them offline. For those that remain a lot of traffic would be perceived as spam. There is no revenue stream that’s attached to that user-base. If there was you would–absolutely!–see lemmy’s user-base increase as there would be a profit incentive: more users would equate to more profit. The current reality is that more users equates to more debts.

The market for ‘internet-forums’ has already consolidated into the big-players we know of. Maybe someone could take lemmy’s code and usurp the established vendors. That behaviour is already underway now; it’s why we have a multitude of lemmy instances. Maybe the next titan of ‘internet-communities’ will be running a lemmy stack. Not all operators are hosting lemmy with ideology/charity being at the fore. Some site operators are asking themselves, “how can I monetise this?”

From my perspective the issue isn’t why people don’t use lemmy, it’s why is hosting so expensive? The prerequisites to self-hosting (whether it be for personal use or for an established group or organisation) are costly. One has to pay rent on a DNS, static-IP, hardware and data connections. These prerequisites are commercial in nature and are priced as if every buyer has a revenue stream from which these rents are payed from.

If an individual/group wants independence and decides to self-host they’re taking on these rents that have been priced at commercial rates. Those are the monetary hurdles. There’s an intellectual hurdle too: a group needs to have members that know how to administer and maintain servers. The prerequisites are rather burdensome. It should then not come as a surprise that a group of young people who play video-games with each other elect to have their community on discord, or whatever commercial-entity takes on the economic and intellectual burdens. These commercial entities hide the complex nature of computer systems and the economic relationships that exist. In exchange they’re chasing speculative profits. They have revenue coming in from which they can apportion to advertising and paid programmers. They have the incentives to grow.

In December 2018, Discord announced it had raised $150 million in funding at a $2 billion valuation. The round was led by Greenoaks Capital with participation from Firstmark, Tencent, IVP, Index Ventures, and Technology Opportunity Partners.

Lemmy is reactionary software. It pines for the day’s of webmaster superiority… Where a webmaster ruled a personal fiefdom and brought and sold other fiefdoms. Users should be able to host and maintain servers for themselves and their communities. Economic rents and knowledge-specialisation are high hurdles to overcome. If they are overcome they’ll find a wasteland where users have already been captured by existing market players—not only that! They’ll exist side-by-side commercial vendors that pay to have their software blasted from every ad outlet they can afford. The enthusiast or ideologue has sparse capital to attract new users away from their existing ‘digital-home’ whilst the current players have enormous war-chests and if non-economic forces somehow push new-users towards them (e.g. something ‘viral’) they have insufficient economic resources to accommodate them.

I would advocate for technology like GNUnet, i2p and hyphanet (GNUnet being my personal favorite). Software such as those abolish the major economic-rents that would otherwise be required for the ‘clearnet’. (DNS rents are unjustifiable and I would like to direct readers to the OpenNIC project.) However the intellectual burden is increased.

I would like to take a jab at the idea that Reddit (or whatever third-party is used) takes ownership of a community and their user-generated content. They certainly do, but the community leaders voluntarily gave it up. They also neglected their responsibilities. There’s no reason why users couldn’t have a local-mirror of their community even if it is hosted on a third-party platform. That would negate the reality of a third-party purge and therefore the ‘destruction’ of their community. These communities are irresponsible with irresponsible users. How does one make an irresponsible user responsible? I don’t think it can be done.

Bank with banks that have websites and that work on desktop-computers. Are you going to install an ‘app’ for every company you want to do commerce with? Things have become quite absurd.