Conversation

I don't think calling it DRM is a mislabel. It would say exactly the same thing about a video game using this feature to enforce that people don't block in-game advertisements or bypass the need to pay micropayments for features or virtual currency.

Quote Tweet

BrendanEich

@BrendanEich

Jul 25, 2019

Replying to @DanielMicay @justsee and @bcrypt

You picked a fight. "DRM" abuse, then "enforced viewing". Ad fraud is real and the $320B/year growing to $1T system uses JS nonsense against it, fruitlessly except for the CYA shakedown artists who sell tag-level antifraud. G & FB use what you mislabel "DRM". We aim to as well.

Replying to

Now you're conflating the tool with uses. DRM means TEE with secret-key protocol where the content owner controls content, key, TEE code, vs the user. Debasing this to mean antifraud tech provided by app stores is an aid to fraud, as well as bad for rational discourse (debasing).

Replying to

You're claiming that I said something that I didn't. I never said that attestation was DRM, or that SafetyNet attestation in particular was DRM. Using it for this purpose is what I am referring to as DRM i.e. enforcing restrictions on what the user can do with the app or content.

Replying to

and

I also never said that DRM was inherently evil. A video game using attestation to implement anti-cheat is DRM. It prevents a user from doing something like using a modified client with color blind support. I don't think it's evil to do that, but I definitely do think it's DRM.

Replying to

You are still double-tweet-replying to each of my tweets. Stop. You abused "DRM". Period, full stop. You also seem to be excusing fraud. What else are we to use than the tech Google and FB use on their native stacks to get low fraud rates, vs. the JS tag-soup programmatic hell?

Daniel Micay

@DanielMicay

Replying to

@BrendanEich

Seriously? I can't spread out my response over 2 tweets? If you want to reply with 2 tweets you can do the same. If the character limit was still 140 characters, yours would be split across multiple tweets too. It's how I use the platform. A thought per tweet in multiple tweets.

12:03 AM · Jul 26, 2019Twitter Web App

Replying to

You can't make sloppy or downright misleading statements in one tweet? I think you can. If not, you're putting yourself on the back foot, not me.

Replying to

and

You cannot take this approach to debate and then get mad at me for needing to respond in multiple tweets: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gall You keep repeating the claim I'm misrepresenting DRM or falsely calling it DRM but I think the majority of people would agree with my definition.

Replying to

I sometimes need a couple of tweets to reply, but you are out of control. Gish gallop describes your tweets, not mine.