https://youtu.be/Nhz6vao13bs

[copypasta]

California AB 2047: The End of Open Source 3D Printing

California just introduced a bill that doesn't just regulate "ghost guns", it mandates a digital kill switch for every 3D printer sold. California AB 2047 requires "blocking technology" that connects your printer to a government-approved database before every single print. If the system goes down, or your file is flagged, your hardware becomes a paperweight.

This isn't just about firearms. This is the death of Open Source. If this bill passes, it effectively bans Marlin, Klipper, and Orca Slicer, forcing every manufacturer to lock down their firmware. It turns general-purpose computing into a walled garden where you only rent permission to use the hardware you own.

[/copypasta]

#OpenSource #RightToRepair #Privacy #Clippy #California #Monopolies #3dPrinters #3dPrinting #Technology #Government #Firearms #Guns #SoftwareFreedom #Surveillance #Panopticon #Lobbyists

All the donor-funded foundations ought to be fighting against and speaking out against this Orwellian garbage.

@eff@mastodon.social
@fsf@hostux.social
@linuxfoundation@social.lfx.dev
@privacyint@mastodon.xyz
@openssf@social.lfx.dev
@rms@mastodon.xyz
@CCIAnet@techpolicy.social
@WriterOfMinds@sigmoid.social
@SeaGL@mastodon.social
@hopeconf@mastodon.online
@w3c@w3c.social
@ACM@mastodon.acm.org
@irtf@discuss.systems
@osi@opensource.org

"The adtech problems drew a monopolization case, and Google lost that one too. And though the remedy is still to come, few think Google will be fundamentally restructured.

And that’s a tragedy, because the shift to AI is perhaps more significant than the shift to mobile. As with the early search market, there are several companies offering foundational AI services, like OpenAI, Microsoft, Perplexity, Anthropic, DeepSeek, and so forth. The two key resources determining which model wins are, same as search before, data and distribution.

Google, as you’d expect, is repeating its search monopolization playbook with Gemini. It is self-preferencing Gemini across its lines of business, which is what it did with Android and search. It is cutting deals to insert Gemini into every major retail channel, which is analogous to its payments to phone makers to thwart rival search engines. Then there’s its deal with Apple, which is virtually identical to what Judge Mehta found to be the original Apple-Google arrangement enabling the illegal monopolization of the search market.

Mehta’s failure to impose a remedy was permission for Google to repeat this scheme with generative AI. And now it has. This deal will ensure that Google’s artificial intelligence chatbot product will become dominant in the most important mobile ecosystem in the world. And its experience structuring adtech markets suggest that if it mediates the entire economy, many tradition businesses will wind up like newspapers, eliminated as Google appropriates profit margins for itself and destroys the ability of consumers to differentiate products based on quality, innovation or other values. It could be an extinction level event for many commercial areas, like the death of the open web, and a dramatic narrowing of consumer choice."

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/will-google-organize-the-worlds-prices

#Google #AI #LLMs #AISearch #PriceFixing #Monopolies #Oligopolies #Competition #Antitrust

"Tech bosses are fundamentally at war with the idea that our digital devices contain "general purpose computers." The general-purposeness of computers – the fact that they are all Turing-complete, universal von Neumann machines – has created tech bosses' fortunes, but now that these fortunes have been attained, the tech sector would like to abolish that general-purposeness; specifically, they would like to make it impossible to run programs that erode their profits or frustrate their attempts at rent-seeking.

This has been a growing trend in computing since the mid-2000s, when tech bosses realized that the "digital rights management" that the entertainment industry had fallen in love with could provide even bigger dividends for tech companies themselves.

Since the Napster era, media companies have demanded that tech platforms figure out how to limit the use and copying of media files after they were delivered to our computers. They believed that there was some practical way to make a computer that would refuse to take orders from its owner, such that you could (for example) "stream" a movie to a user without that being a "download." The truth, of course is that all streams are downloads, because the only way to cause my screen to display a video file that is on your server is for your server to send that file to my computer.

"Streaming" is a consensus hallucination, and when a company claims to be giving you a "stream" that's not a "download," they really mean that they believe that the program that's rendering the file on your screen doesn't have a "save as" button.
(...)
[]Even if the program doesn't have a "save as" button, someone could easily make a "save as" plugin that adds that functionality to your streaming program. So "streaming" isn't just "a video playback program without a 'save as' button," it's also "a video playback program that no one can add a 'save as' button to.""

https://pluralistic.net/2025/09/01/fulu/#i-am-altering-the-deal

#Monopolies #Antitrust #BigTech #Streaming #Copyright