I wouldn't say they are doing it wrong, I'd say that there is a fundamental conflict between privacy and anti-bot measures.

For privacy reasons I don't want a unique IP address. I want a shared one, and if it's IPv6 I want it to rotate frequently. That's one of the reasons why I use a VPN. ISPs probably also like it because it means that without extensive logging, for which there is no business justification, they can't identify who downloaded some movie that the MAFIAA et. al. want to sue over.

But of course the anti-bot features would love everyone to have a fixed IP address assigned to their person. Failing that, they seem to prefer to just mass block shared IP addresses and force you to log in.

Stuff burning up does not disappear. It becomes part of the upper atmosphere. Before there were so few things burning up that nobody really bothered considering it, but now we are going to be having tens of thousands of satellites re-entering every year, it needs to be looked into.

Under your proposal:
1. How would the producer of a video cover the cost of producing the video before it even reaches BitTorrent?
2. How would a viewer learn of a video that they are likely to enjoy?
3. How would the system work around users who "leech", or view the video without contributing to its decentralized hosting?

If you've got 1 bad cop, and 9 "good" cops who are covering for him, what you've actually got there is 10 bad cops.

You have it exactly right. I can see why you didn't post with an identity, you'd get punished by the reich wingers. Wage theft exceeds all other theft combined but maggots are still crying about shoplifters

Indeed. And a few that are not offenders at all and against quite a few misidentified people since this tech is _unreliable_.

I find IPv6 is worse than CGNAT for these anti-bot measures. YouTube is a good example. With IPv6 enabled all I ever see is "log in to prove you are not a bot". With it disabled and sitting behind CGNAT, I can usually watch some videos.

It already has been making false positive matches. There have been several stories about people randomly accosted as they entered stores like B&M, with the security staff claiming they were criminals and often breaking the law themselves in the process.

Because the database is shared by several different chains, it's something that you can't ignore if it falsely flags you. You need to get them to remove your face from it, and ideally claim some compensation for the misuse of your biometric data. The baseline is £250, but I'd be looking for at least £750 due to the hassle and embarrassment caused.

In some jurisdictions, it is not even classified as an attack.

The problem is a practical one. As soon as you restrict voting, some assholes will use that for their own purposes. If that effect could be prevented, voting could be restricted to those that actually understand what they are voting for or against and democracy would work much, much better.

As a CS PhD? I do not even thing that is possible without a major mental breakdown. I think you are hallucinating.

I was just stating the obvious to complete the argument.

Hmmm. Looks like I installed Adblock Plus on Vivaldi so long ago that I did not remember. My apologies.

The main problem they have is that their monopoly is not actually one. That it is all made up.

The amount of queries needed to steal a model (which is possible though queries) is prohibitive. This is probably just an attempt to keep up the fantasy that China cannot do their own models. That is nonsense. For example, small Switzerland has created its own open model (https://apertus-ai.org/), mostly as an academic project. China for sure can do it. All I see China doing is comparative benchmarks and such and that is perfectly legitimate.

If China can do it, that means the likes of Anthropic are not nearly as special as they present themselves to be. But that false image of superiority is what keeps their cash-flow going, because they are still very far away from becoming profitable (if they ever do). Hence, in order to be able to keep burning the stupid money (from "investors"), they have to push this narrative.