zlacker

>>christ+(OP)
The first use case they mention is restricting ad fraud (and, presumably, ad blocking):

> Users like visiting websites that are expensive to create and maintain, but they often want or need to do it without paying directly. These websites fund themselves with ads, but the advertisers can only afford to pay for humans to see the ads, rather than robots. This creates a need for human users to prove to websites that they're human, sometimes through tasks like challenges or logins.

So if this goes forward, websites will be able to call the web environment integrity API to check you are a proper ad-watching human before serving content.

>>akyuu+B8
"Your contract with the network when you get the show is, you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Anytime you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing programming."

Jamie Kellner's words still ring true today. When corporations make content available supported by advertisements, they are assuming a moral obligation on your part to see those advertisements. Violating that obligation is felony contempt of business model.

>>bitwiz+wb
This is sarcasm right? Because otherwise it sounds like going to the bathroom during a commercial would be illegal.

>>hoover+wk
Kellner did add "I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom." But if your bathroom breaks become too frequent, I guess you run the risk of "actually stealing programming".

>>bitwiz+kn
Looking forward to the debates about the precise number and length of bathroom breaks per session that the networks would be willing to grant.

(I'm very sure they'll be willing to work out reasonable solutions for edge cases - i.e. you'll be granted up to 2 extra bathroom breaks if you have a corresponding medical condition. Just connect your Netflix and Samsung accounts with your healthcare provider's and they'll figure out the rest. We're all humans after all!)