"I, for one, welcome web canvases with ads that I can never block or dismiss." That's what you're saying, right? Because that's what Google wants, at the end of the day.
Those apps will be no less intrusive, and significantly more powerful than what exists today. In fact, you are welcoming a reduction of our freedoms.
edit: God, RMS was right all along, there are no freedoms but end-user freedoms.
So much DRM will force you to use some particular software in some particular way with seemingly arbitrary restrictions. Frankly consumers would be much better off without DRM in the world.
It won't be after we expand the powers of plugins to get in underneath the layers you know. You can't block elements or code that you disagree with when there are no elements because everything is a web-canvas or plugin that is rendering underneath you.
Remember when Flash existed? Nobody could block dangerous elements of Flash, it was all or nothing. Why would you ever want to go back to that?
> Frankly consumers would be much better off without DRM in the world.
Great, we agree! So why do you think the powers of DRM should be expanded?
> Of course in practice it was designed for DRM (and makes little sense outside of that)
So "WELL ACKCHYUALLY" but in defense of DRM?
Perhaps if the veneer of legitimacy is so transparently thin that you can't even be bothered to defend it yourself, you could just not grant it that legitimacy. The academic points really don't matter compared to the fact that you are defending stuff that is hurting us.
LPT: the cause that you are exercising your debate skills in favor of actually does matter, all causes are not actually equal.