[chii]

> I expect that it will initially not use it

it's boiling the frog method. Moving too fast means backlash, but a slow, step by step transition where each step seems reasonable, but ultimately end up with a locked down device, is how they aim to achieve it. And people would be too lazy to complain until the last few steps, by which time it would be too late.

[baranul]

Good metaphor. On the one hand, Google increasingly cooperates and makes deals with militaries and governments. On the other hand, it increasingly locks down its customers and eliminates their privacy and freedoms.

Google has just about got the pot boiling. They win, we lose.

[Velocifyer]

There is already so much backlash. If I ever use a recaptcha, I will have Google Gemini solve it wasting Googles compute and messing up the dataset.

[manwe150]

FWIW, “boiling the frog” is the example of false reasoning about slippery slopes (the frog in actuality always left)

Your larger point still stands though of normalizing changing expectations by slow degrees

[chii]

Not really - i would prefer that any policy change that _could_ be utilized in the future to enable future draconian changes be killed before it takes root.

I want a system, like type safety, to guarantee that XYZ cannot be possible, rather than rely on civil jurisprudence and active opposition to prevent it. We don't have that today, but i like to have it.

[brookst]

So you want to ship technical means that prohibit companies from shipping products that limit what you can do with them?

It’s kind of self-defeating, isn’t it? Why would I adopt your standard when it limits what I can build?