The US is worse than China in many aspects, from forever wars to climate over colonialism to fascism and support for an ongoing extremely violent genocide on over a hundred thousand civilians, - where is China geonociding hundreds a week right now? Yeah nowhere, but the US is doing that every decade.

Incredible to see this angle that 'the good guys' are bowing down to bad China in this context when you have so much poverty, political repression and lack of gay rights, abortion etc in many right wing states to straight up hyper right wing terrorism targeting vulnerable populations every year.

Personally, I feel like america still has (had) hope with zohran mamdani but after the recent american shutdown, I would consider democratic party to be an extension of republican party or not doing anything radical except bernie,aoc, zohran and some other people.

I feel like America could have a hope to swing whereas china doesn't imo.

although, I feel like what is happening is that people made (short term?) decisions earlier generations earlier which lead us to where we are today where any country over-all needs a radical change as both europe and america and a lot of other countries need to radicalize what they are doing to give hope to the youngsters

Personally I feel like we shouldn't care much about US or chinese products but rather the ideologies of the product creators if we are worried about things and I think this is one of the reasons I love open source so much.

My man, the US and China are more or less the exact same here with the exception of forever wars.

Climate? China pollutes like crazy, and so does the US. Colonialism? Maybe not in the same vein but China does engage in actions to other nations, such as Macau, Hong Kong, and Taiwan that could be classified as colonialism. Fascism? Well yeah both countries are pretty much openly fascist right now. Support for an ongoing extremely violent genocide of over a hundred thousand people? Yeah the US and China are both complicit there. In fact, in China, you're speaking about the regime itself, with context to the ongoing genocide of Uyghur people.

And the Uyghur repression is no genocide compared to Palestine thats complete US misinformation and frankly a sinister comparison - the US is much much more violent, again look at Palestine, before that literally 30+ wars for resources and markets with millions of civilians dead.

Im not naive about China but this US = beacon of human rights angle is frankly gross to me.

China has many problems but americans are literally worse and you wanting to boycut due to human rights, is this a joke?

China is where the west exported pollution to by the fact that we pushed most of the deadly and dangerous production and manufacturing there.

So all the west does is launder pollution through east and southeastern asia.

It’s like trying to reduce prostitution, when society is demanding more sex, do you jail the prostitutes or the tricks?

If there’s no demand for sex workers then there’s no sex worker market. However if nobody is struggling to survive, then theres no supply.

You need to end the desire for consumption in order to eliminate authoritarianism

> No the chinese people, most of whom do not have a ICE car, do not produce those carbon numbers

That sounds to me like you're saying that China is not as bad as the US, because the pollution in China comes in some part from laundered pollution from the US. If that's not the case, could you explain what you meant?

Someone paying to fly a private jet and a slave putting coal into a furnace aren’t the same

Xinjiang. They put people in camps and take extensive efforts to prevent births, to eliminate the Uighur population over time.

You're focussing exclusively on violence. If Israel adopted China's Xinjiang methods they would:

1. Take direct administrative control over Gaza

2. Place any man even remotely linked to violence or Islam in a prison camp and use them as prison labour to produce products

3. Monitor all women and prevent them from having births

But, violence would go down. In Xinjiang the Muslim population is shrinking as the authorities prevent reproduction.

Following your logic you are saying you would find this less objectionable. Is that actually the case? I suspect not.

I write this to hopefully expand your view that more than one situation can be objectionable, that not everyone is American or Israeli and it is possible to analyze a situation on its own merits and say "huh that's bad".

China goes to great lengths to minimize actual violence, which minimizes attention, which lets them focus on shrinking the population of Uighurs. I doubt Israel could actually do this in Gaza, but I think it would be worse if they did.

I am totally on board condemning China, but you aren't with Israel and that says it all - and i don't believe you actually are concerned about this muslim minority if you aren't at least as horrified by Israeli actual warcrimes and an ongoing genocide.

They already monitor everyone, they already control all markets they dont just prevent births they kill kids in an ethnic cleansing according to experts at the ICC, Amnesty International, Doctors without Borders and many others.

Again, unfathomable to me that you can list "they prevent births" as worse than murdering over 40.000 kids in a few years in Gaza and 100.000 civilians according to the newest numbers - that's by all measures worse than what China's doing and why every respectable NGO and expert groups are talking about Israel and not the Uyghurs at the moment.

Why are you not condemning Israels/US ethnic cleansing when i'm condemning chinas actions on multiple fronts?

I guess it's OK — I'm European too, for example — but it does seem like you're doing it to imply that your views are somehow (at least relatively more) popular among, or representative of, well, Europeans. But now that we're making such massive generalisations, I'd claim that well-educated English-speaking Europeans are often likelier to be more familiar with the views and internal debates among Americans than those of many of their fellow Europeans, and that you're probably no exception.

As for your comment, had you not addressed it to 'you Americans', I'd be hard-pressed to tell it apart from a pretty standard-issue American Left (or 'Progressive') rant, perhaps somewhere from the younger and more identitarian part of that crowd, for example (despite some of the quasi-tankie undertones). While I'll admit that scoffing at things like pro-life policies and/or American poverty is certainly easier and more common throughout the political spectra in (Western) Europe, I'd say your cringe-inducing bothsidesism with USA and China falls closer to the crackpot left camp in Europe as well.

Europe contains multitudes, and undoubtedly for some but not all, up until now at least, it has been a bit too easy to comfortably observe and judge things for so long as a world-political bystander from under the US nuclear umbrella, typically further from the Russian border too — whether you were an insular French with casual contempt for all things 'Yankee', a German atomic-phobic pacifist (or worse, a far-right, Pro-Putin knuckle dragger) from that 'European powerhouse' heated with Russian non-renewables, or even a Swede from the world's leading moral superpower, or something like that, anyway... ;)

I thought censoring and straight up brigading was not allowed here? But i guess if they do what the article is about they can easily sway a thread like this in a few minutes, and i'm sure they do when stuff becomes frontpage on various sites. Can't talk about the genocide.

DHH was someone I kinda read him online, but he's been going full-in on these racist talking points, e.g., https://paulbjensen.co.uk/2025/09/17/on-dhhs-as-i-remember-l... :(

We need something that's good for small and medium businesses again, local news and get an actual marketplace going - you know what the internet actually promised.

Anyone working on something like this?

They are currently experimenting with replicating many types of services which are currently websites as protocols with data types, with the goal being that all of these services can share available data with eachother openly.

It's definitely more of a "bazaar" model over a "catherdral" model, with many open questions and it's also tough to get a good overview of what is really going on there. But at least it's an attempt.

Also, plenty of small and medium businesses are doing fine on the internet. You only hear about ones with problems like this. And if these problems become more frequent and public, Google will put more effort into fixing them.

I think the most practical thing we can do is support people and companies who fall through the cracks, by giving them information to understand their situation and recover, and by promoting them.

Why would they do that? Do they lose money from these people? Why would they care? they're a monopoly they don't need to care

We _still_ have a "smart person only internet" really, it's just now used mostly for drug and weapon sales ( Tor )

For some group of smart people, there will be a group of smarter people who want to dominate the The people they designate "the stupids".

The internet was a technological solution to a social problem. It introduced other social problems, although arguably these to your point are old social problems in a new arena.

But there may be yet another technological solution to the old social problems of monopolism, despotic centralized control, and fraud.

.... I did say "may".

Any new protocol not only has to overcome the huge incumbent that is the web, it has to do so grassroots against the power of global capital (trillions of dollars of it). Of course, it also has to work in the first place and not be captured and centralised like another certain open and decentralised protocol has (i.e., the Web).

Is that easier than the states doing their jobs and writing a couple pages of text?

The problem is that the divide of alignment of interests there is between new, small companies and users. New companies want to put up a website without tripping over one of the thousand unwritten rules of "How to not look like a phishing site or malware depot" (many of which are unwritten because protecting users and exploiting users is a cat-and-mouse game)... And users don't want to get owned.

Shard Chrome off from Google and it still has incentives to protect users at the cost of new companies' ease of joining the global network as a peer citizen. It may have less signal as a result of a curtailed visibility on the state of millions of pages, but the consequence of that is that it would offer worse safe browsing protection and more users would get owned as a result.

Perhaps the real issue is that (not unlike email) joining the web as a peer citizen has just plain gotten harder in the era of bad actors exploiting the infrastructure to cause harm to people.

Like... You know what never has these problems? My blog. It's a static-site-generated collection of plain HTML that updates once in a blue moon via scp. I'm not worried about Google's safe browsing infrastructure, because I never look like a malware site. And if I did trip over one of the unwritten rules (or if attackers figured out how to weaponize something personal-blog-shaped)? The needs of the many justify Chrome warning people before going to my now-shady site.

Some candidate language:

- Monopolistic companies may not actively impose restrictions which harm others (includes businesses)

or

- Some restrictions are allowed, but the company must respond to an appeal of restrictions within X minutes; Appeals to the company can themselves be appealed to a governmental independent board which binds the company with no further review permitted; All delays and unreasonable responses incur punitive penalties as judged by the board; All penalties must be paid immediately

or

- If an action taken unilaterally by a company 1) harms someone AND 2) is automated: Then, that automation must be immediately, totally, and unconditionally reversed upon the unilateral request of the victim. The company may reinstate the action upon the sworn statement of an employee that they have made the decision as a human, and agree to be accountable for the decision. The decision must then follow the above appeals process.

or

- No monopolies allowed

That's not generally how monopoly is interpreted in the US (although jurisprudence on this may be shifting). In general, the litmus test is consumer harm. A company is allowed to control 99% of the market if they do it by providing a better experience to consumers than other companies can; that's just "being successful." Microsoft ran afoul of antitrust because their browser sucked and embedding it in the OS made the OS suck too; if they hadn't tried to parlay one product into the other they would be unlikely to have run afoul of US antitrust law, and they haven't run afoul of it over the fact that 70-90% of x86 architecture PCs run Windows.

> Some restrictions are allowed, but the company must respond to an appeal of restrictions within X minutes; Appeals to the company can themselves be appealed to a governmental independent board which binds the company with no further review permitted; All delays and unreasonable responses incur punitive penalties as judged by the board; All penalties must be paid immediately

There may be meat on those bones (a general law restricting how browsers may operate in terms of rendering user content). Risky because it would codify into law a lot of ideas that are merely technical specifications (you can look to other industries to see the consequences of that, like how "five-over-ones" are cropping up in cities all over the US because they satisfy a pretty uniform fire and structural safety building code to the letter). But this could be done without invoking monopoly protection.

> If an action taken unilaterally by a company 1) harms someone AND 2) is automated: Then, that automation must be immediately, totally, and unconditionally reversed upon the unilateral request of the victim.

Too broad. It harms me when Google blocks my malware distribution service because I'm interested in getting malware on your machine; I really want your Bitcoin wallet passwords, you see. ;)

Most importantly: this whole topic is independent of monopolies. We could cut Chrome out of Google tomorrow and the exact same issues with safe browsing impeding new sites with malware-ish shapes would exist (with the only change probably being the false positive rate would go up, since a Chrome cut off from Google would have to build out its detection and reporting logic from scratch without relying on the search crawler DB). More importantly, a user can install another browser that doesn't have site protection today (or, if I understand correctly, switch it off). The reason this is an issue is that users like Chrome and are free to use it and tend to find site protection useful (or at least "not a burden to them") and that's not something Google imposed on the industry, it's a consequence of free user choice.

That's okay, a random company failing to protect users from harm is still better than harming an innocent person by accident. They already fail in many cases, obviously we accept a failure rate above 0%. You also skipped over the rest of that paragraph.

> users like Chrome and are free to use it and tend to find site protection useful (or at least "not a burden to them")

That's okay, Google can abide by the proposal I set forth avoiding automated mistaken harms to people. If they want to build this system that can do great harms to people, they need to first and foremost build in safety nets to address those harms they cause, and only then focus on reducing false negatives.

I don't think we can easily discard the first in favor of the second. Not nearly as categorically as is done here. Those "false negatives" mean users lose things (bank accounts, privacy, access to their computer) through no fault of their own. We should pause and consider that before weeping and rending our garments that yet another hosting provider solution had a bad day.

You've stopped considering monopoly and correctly considered that the real issue is safe browsing, as a feature, is useful to users and disruptive to new business models. But that's independent of Google; that's the nature of sharing a network between actors that want to provide useful services to people and actors that want to cause harm. If I build a browser today, from scratch, that included safe browsing we'd be in the same place and there'd be no Google in the story.

To be fair, I evaluated that trade off before replying. It's also not just "new sites", but literally any site or person which could be victimized by "safe browsing".

> Those "false negatives" mean users lose things (bank accounts, privacy, access to their computer) through no fault of their own.

That was already happening, and will continue to happen, no matter what. The only thing that the false negative caused is, a stranger didn't swoop in to save a 2nd stranger from a 3rd stranger. That's ok: superheros are bad government. The government should be the one protecting citizens.

Well, no... That's the thing about false negatives vs. true negatives. The more effective the safe browsing protection is, the fewer false negatives. I think we can agree to disagree on where one should tune the knob between minimizing false negatives and minimizing false positives, especially since

a) you have to be doing something pretty unusual to trigger a false positive (such as "setting up an elaborate mechanism to let user-generated content be hosted off of a subdomain you own")

b) there is a workaround once a publisher is aware of the issue.

> The government should be the one protecting citizens.

This seems to be a claim "Safe browsing should be a government institution." I don't immediately disagree, but we must ask ourselves "Which government do we trust with that responsibility?" In America, that's a near-vertical cliff to scale (and it was even before the current government proved a willingness to weaponize its enforcement capacity against speech that should by rights be protected).

If I don't like Chrome safe browsing protection, I can turn it off or change browsers. What do I do if I don't like my government's safe browsing protection? Is it as opt-out as a corporate-provided one is?

That reiterates what I said: the harms happened before, and will continue happening, no matter what. No action will reduce them to 0.

> a) you have to be doing something pretty unusual to trigger a false positive

I don't think that's true here. Many people have been harmed due to trivial, common actions. Other victims, their charges are secret, and they are not afforded due process, an impartial judge, or even the right to face their accusers. Very tyrannic and kafka-esque. Without transparency into the precise rules and process, we categorically cannot make the above claim, and evidence seems to belie it.

> This seems to be a claim "Safe browsing should be a government institution."... What do I do if I don't like my government's safe browsing protection? Is it as opt-out as a corporate-provided one is?

Good news! It isn't. Who says the government needs to provide safe browsing protection? There are other levers governments can take, like investigating and prosecuting criminals, and making victims whole. "Safe browsing" exists because the government has so far failed at that. Law enforcement is more focused on rounding up & perpetrating violence upon people with different skin color than them, I guess.

All that said, I feel like I articulated a pretty good alternative if google really wants to keep safe browsing going: just provide due process to their victims, which includes: a presumption of innocence (one even weaker than in public policy); the right to face their accusers; the right to a speedy, public trial; the right to defend themselves; and the right to an impartial judge/jury.

I gave the grace of assuming you weren't making the absurd argument "You can't ever protect against all ills, therefore you shouldn't try." I won't continue in making that error if that was an error.

> Many people have been harmed due to trivial, common actions

[citation needed]. 100% of safe browsing flaggings I am familiar with are "We let users put content on our site without vetting it," or "We hosted binaries without vetting them and one was malware," or "We got owned and didn't know it." I'm sure there are false positives that are truly false, but I'm aware of zero. Google isn't generally in the business of being preemptive about this sort of thing; they tend to add a site to safe browsing warning only after their crawlers have detected an actual threat behavior. Even in the case of immich.cloud, I don't see any evidence that Immich audited 100% of the *.immich.cloud sites against malware or against users using it intentionally to put up a "This is definitely the Bank of America login page" site with Immich de-facto signing off on the legitimacy of that site.

> they are not afforded due process, an impartial judge, or even the right to face their accusers

I would be in favor of improvements to the restoration process, but there are very good reasons to make addition to the safe browsing list fast; sites on the safe browsing list demonstrated an actual harm vector. Being added to the list isn't being found guilty; it's being arrested by a cop on the street on suspicion of guilt. I will concur that Google is under-incentivized to aggressively crawl red-paged sites to see if they are recovered.

> Very tyrannic and kafka-esque

The key difference is that users may stop using Chrome if it bothers them. Since they don't, I think we can make the educated guess that the benefit outweighs the harm for Chrome users.

> Without transparency into the precise rules and process

Non-starter. The process is a cat-and-mouse against hostile actors. They can't inform the public of all the rules without informing the hostile actors at the same time. This is similar to the reason they don't publish an exhaustive list of what gets an ad banned.

> Who says the government needs to provide safe browsing protection?

Perhaps I misunderstood you. Two posts up: "a stranger didn't swoop in to save a 2nd stranger from a 3rd stranger. That's ok: superheros are bad government. The government should be the one protecting citizens." I thought this meant that it was not okay for private companies to be providing safe browsing protection, but it would be okay for a government to do so? Perhaps the superhero metaphor is lost on me.

> There are other levers governments can take, like investigating and prosecuting criminals, and making victims whole. "Safe browsing" exists because the government has so far failed at that.

Here we are in agreement. But I think rounding up and prosecuting criminals and making victims whole in this context would require sweeping and trans-national law changes to e.g. give a grandmother in Idaho her life savings back after operatives in Russia steal it, with at least two governments conducting inter-country data forensics to resolve the question of who the culprit was that may cost an order of magnitude of resources atop said life savings. I'm not holding my breath (especially since one of those countries is currently under sanctions from the other country).

> just provide due process to their victims, which includes: a presumption of innocence

It's a non-starter. The "victims" here are websites with dodgy reputations and dodgier methods of even contacting them to let them know they look sketchy, much less expectation they will respond to that information. Google red-paging the site is the method of contacting them; the only one that works reliably. The rights you claim necessary are necessary to protect against a government, which one cannot choose to not be a citizen of. Not the safe-access policies of a browser that people can choose not to use.

Your fundamental concern is that the current status quo is tilted towards user safety and against new site admins vs. incumbent sites. Yes. This is the correct place for a browser to put the risk-reward weights. Email has already followed the same pattern for very similar reasons.

p.s: FWIW, Immich tried to switch from immich.cloud to immich.build and immediately tripped over another issue: their SSL certificate was signed for immich.cloud, and it can't validate a site with the TLD immich.build. Independent of all other issues here about safe browsing in general, Immich seems to be demonstrating a spooky lack of understanding about architecting web services from the point of view of multiple features paid for in blood to keep end-users safe, and I don't feel a lot of trust of the project (or its parent, Futo) in general at this time.

Technical alternatives already exist, see for example GNUnet.

Since Mastodon is, fundamentally, a protocol and reference implementation, people can come up with their own enshittified nodes or clients... And then the rest of the ecosystem can respond by just ignoring that work.

Yes, technically Truth Social is a Mastodon node. My Mastodon node doesn't have to care.

These apply to a lot of other decentralized systems too.

I do think I invite people to disrespect me a little though. It ensures that I have to work harder and succeed on the merit of my work.

You probably have no idea how much working class anger, how many unknown groups and "screams from the abyss" are being targeted, removed, censored, deranked before they gain any critical mass in this bizarre cybernetic web that's been created. I sure don't.

But sometimes you feel it on a gut level, flooded in a torrent of PR and entertainment, mind controlling algorithms and mainstream media with an increasingly tiny overton window disregarding the circus of culture wars farming attention and steering political anger for economic political gains - through a media landscape where all local news, actual working class papers representing real people, and diversity of thought has been replaced by thoughts™ approved by one of the few giga corporations working for a microscopic plutocracy.

It's over 100 years since Edward Bernays et al. invented modern PR, then came astroturfing, and now it's all so weird and colossal that no talks about what was seemingly obvious a century ago.

Disclaimer, i actually like a bit of "bling", but both Tahoe and IOS so filled with glitches and errors, while the UX is bizarrely inconsistent it really is catastrophically bad.

The notch is bigger than it should be for sure, I would've loved for it to be narrower. But I don't really mind the trade-off it represents.

You could add half an inch of screen bezel and make the machine bigger, just to fit the web cam. Or you could remove half an inch of screen , essentially making the "notch" stretch across the whole top of the laptop. Or you could find some compromised place to put the camera, like those Dell laptops which put the camera near the hinge. Or you can let the screen fill the whole lid of the laptop, with a cut-out for the camera, and design the GUI such that the menu bar fills the part of the screen that's interrupted by the notch.

I personally don't mind that last option. For my needs, it might very well be the best alternative. If I needed a bigger below-the-notch area, I could get the 16" option instead of the 14" option.

OLED screens are inherently transparent, there is just a light-emitting layer in them. You put your camera behind the screen, and either make the few pixels on top of the lens go black when it's on, or you use a lot of software to remove the light that comes from the screen and clean up the picture.

Feels like for a laptop it would be durable enough and also fulfill the "webcam is physically blocked when off".

Maybe it's a patent thing.

I use my webcam enough these days to take part in video meetings that it'd be a pretty big problem for me.

Snapdragon X Elite 2 processor will be out next year for the refreshed model

The weight is the big one for me - only 2.5 lbs vs 3.4 lbs

Remember the Dell has an 18 month old processor, X Elite 2 coming out next year.

Source for all these stats: https://nanoreview.net/en/laptop-compare/dell-xps-13-9345-20...

Companies tried that. You get very strange-looking up-your-nose pictures.

Yeah the over thirty thousand dead kids really shouldn't have "done" october 7, a response done by completely different people to decades of violence, it was so stupid of them.

This is vile and incredibly dehumanising if not straight up violently racist.

Source? Even Hamas claims fewer than 70,000 [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_war