[matheusmoreira]

> What is the point of freedom if you have a joyless existence?

> no one is making you install anti-cheat software

You don't see the irony here? You don't see the trillion dollar corporations dangling "joy" in front of us and conditioning access to it on acceptance of their bullshit non-negotiable take it or leave it contracts where "we own your computer now" is a clause?

The powerful choice is to reject the silly binary choice they offer you and take a third option. Refuse their deal and refuse your so called "joyless" existence.

Enjoy your games while also keeping control of your computer. If they try to usurp control of your computer, stop them from doing so. Only malware would try that, treat them accordingly. If you must associate with cheaters and pirates in order to acquire the necessary technology and know-how, then so be it.

It's the same thing with DRM, it's the same thing with ads, it's the same thing with pretty much everything. They give you some bullshit choices, but you can take a third option because you own the machine. That's the power they would take away from you.

[Rohansi]

> If they try to usurp control of your computer, stop them from doing so.

But anti-cheat software is not doing this? You are free to do whatever you want on your computer as long as it doesn't interfere with the game process. Most, if not all, anti-cheats will also not do anything when the game isn't open.

Some games (including Rust) give you the choice to play with no anti-cheat, too. You'll only be able to play on servers that allow players to join with no anti-cheat but you are not blocked from the game.

I would be more worried about computing becoming more phone-centric where Apple and Google are in control of what you can and cannot do.

[matheusmoreira]

> You are free to do whatever you want on your computer as long as

You are not free. "Your" computer is not actually yours. It doesn't do what you want.

> Most, if not all, anti-cheats will also not do anything when the game isn't open.

Stop believing this. For god's sake I just posted an example of a corporation that thought it was perfectly justified in hacking their customers and stealing their browser passwords. There is no line they wouldn't cross.

They could be doing literally anything and you know it. There's no way for you to know unless you reverse engineer the software, and if you try they are only too happy to label you a cheater and permaban your account or whatever it is that they do.

> I would be more worried about computing becoming more phone-centric where Apple and Google are in control of what you can and cannot do.

This is the exact same issue.

Apple, Google, Disney, Netflix, Hollywood, the games industry, the copyright industry, all the governments the world over are all battling for control over our machines.

This anticheating nonsense is just the tutorial boss.

[Rohansi]

> They could be doing literally anything and you know it. There's no way for you to know unless you reverse engineer the software

Literally anything you run on your computer (running Windows) can take screenshots of your desktop, pull passwords saved in your browser, etc. without running in kernel mode. Even applications that aren't running as Administrator.

[matheusmoreira]

That was never in dispute. The point is they cannot be trusted. Not even the "but they wouldn't do that" argument is valid: they would and they have.

Knowing and accepting these risks is a big reason why we run Linux with free and open source software sourced from trusted software repositories.

We put effort into this because we want to control everything that happens on our machines, so that we are not affected by stupid nonsense like that.

Recall what I said in my original comment:

> You want their nonsense absolutely contained and isolated, not deep in your kernel.

We don't want unknown uncontrollable proprietary idiocy running on our computers, least of all in kernel mode.

Ideally that stuff would not even exist to begin with, but since it does we move on to the next best thing: containing and isolating it to the fullest extent. The ideal setup is a VFIO configuration where the host is a Linux system where we have full control and the virtual machine is fully isolated and controlled.

As such we really don't need idiotic "anticheat" software taking issue with perfectly good technologies like virtual machines and hypervisors. Cheaters are using this stuff? I don't care. Just accept it.

[efdee]

It's not clear what freedom you are sacrificing. Nobody is forcing you to play those games. If you don't want to let them run their anti cheat system, don't do it. This is not some unavoidable measure.

What a strange hill to want to die on.

[matheusmoreira]

This has nothing at all to do with whether you are "forced" to do anything. Anyone who wants to play games should be able to do so without some abusive anticheat taking over their machine.

It doesn't matter what's written in their silly EULAs which nobody reads. I couldn't care less if it ruins the games or costs them billions in profits. You are morally justified in defeating their silly anticheat nonsense in order to enjoy games on your terms without them pwning your computer. You are only morally wrong if you actually cheat.

And it's not at all some "strange hill to die on". This is a fundamental computing freedom issue. It's about who owns the keys to the machine. It's the exact same issue Android users face when they install GrapheneOS only to discover their bank doesn't support it just because it's not owned by Google. In my opinion this should be literally illegal.

[efdee]

"abusive", "silly", "couldn't care less", "nonsense", "literally illegal". I don't think you'll find many people want to join your cause if you are this aggressive.

More on topic, I agree that you should be allowed to do with your computer what you want. That includes defeating their anti-cheat measures. Your computer, your rules. In return, they can refuse to support you or ban them from their servers. Their stuff, their rules.

But this idea that you are entitled to tell them they have to provide you with a version that does not have their anti-cheat measures, that is pretty far out there. That is where most people will stop following your reasoning.

YMMV.

[matheusmoreira]

> I don't think you'll find many people want to join your cause if you are this aggressive.

If I come off as aggressive, it's only because of my exasperation due to people sacrificing freedom for video games of all things. Online games that will be dead after a couple years. What a colossal waste.

Anyway, I'm no politician. I'm actually very close to giving up on these so called "causes", precisely because people refuse to listen. There's no point. Being polite doesn't make them listen. Nobody listened to Stallman. Threaten their convenience, their fun and games, and they're gone.

If they won't listen, then they deserve the consequences. One day all the corporations and authorities will start turning the screws on them. Only then will they start caring about this stuff. Nobody will listen to them either.

> But this idea that you are entitled to tell them they have to provide you with a version that does not have their anti-cheat measures, that is pretty far out there.

No.

https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...

The optimal amount of fraud is non-zero. You could have zero fraud by ramping up the requirements before you trust someone enough to transact with them. That will result in very few purchases though. Decreases profits. So what they do is they let it happen and eat the costs. Fraud isn't a crime, it's an expense. Accounted for.

The optimal amount of crime is non-zero. You could virtually eliminate crime by implementing an orwellian dystopia where everybody is surveilled at all times. Nobody actually wants to endure such a subhuman existence though, so we're forced to accept the risk of crime. Tolerating some amount of crime is the price of our basic human dignity.

Same logic generalizes to online games. The optimal amount of cheating is non-zero. They could eliminate it by taking the computer away from us. That's an affront to our dignity as the owners of the machines. So we have to tolerate some cheating in order to keep our dignity.

These considerations are accounted for in society as a whole. It's no different here.

[hhh]

no it’s not, you can just not do it.