Language
-
wrote last edited by [email protected]
Why do you hate property rights?
Because that's what your argument actually boils down to: utter and complete contempt for users' property rights. You're advocating for subjugating them to corporations as technofeudal serfs.
You know this to be true.
-
Why do you hate property rights?
Because that's what your argument actually boils down to: utter and complete contempt for users' property rights. You're advocating for subjugating them to corporations as technofeudal serfs.
You know this to be true.
You've made up some things there. My concern is that the OP is a poor argument for the point it's trying to make. Not sure where you invented the rest of that bullshit from.
-
I didn't make up a damn thing. You clearly and obviously hate property rights. That's the only reason you could possibly justify trying to take them away from people. Just admit it.
Claiming that corporations -- not governments, corporations, which is why your catalytic converter analogy was bullshit BTW -- need to self-servingly restrict people in the name of "protecting" them is fucking dishonest and you know it.
-
I didn't make up a damn thing. You clearly and obviously hate property rights. That's the only reason you could possibly justify trying to take them away from people. Just admit it.
Claiming that corporations -- not governments, corporations, which is why your catalytic converter analogy was bullshit BTW -- need to self-servingly restrict people in the name of "protecting" them is fucking dishonest and you know it.
Cool, I never claimed anything even close to what you just vomited out. Here's what I did say, though:
The problem I take is with the argument the OP presents, because it incorrectly suggests that the average user has (or should have) an expert-level knowledge of their devices. Safety rails exist for a reason. Yes, they're going too far; but no, removing them outright would not be the better solution.
That's all I was claiming, my guy. Go find your "gotcha" moment somewhere else, because it ain't here.
-
wrote last edited by [email protected]
What's being discussed here isn't "safety rails," though. Why are you lying?
Android already had "safety rails," which is why installing from sources other than the Play Store was called "sideloading" and not just "loading." What's happening now is that Google is turning those barriers against the users and building a cage to imprison them instead.
People need to understand how fucking despicable and beyond the pale this shit actually is, yet you're making excuses for it instead. What the fuck.
-
What's being discussed here isn't "safety rails," though. Why are you lying?
Android already had "safety rails," which is why installing from sources other than the Play Store was called "sideloading" and not just "loading." What's happening now is that Google is turning those barriers against the users and building a cage to imprison them instead.
People need to understand how fucking despicable and beyond the pale this shit actually is, yet you're making excuses for it instead. What the fuck.
Yes, you've identified that there are multiple rails. Arguably, too many. It's almost like I pointed that out already.
Yes, they're going too far
Are you illiterate or just trolling?
-
wrote last edited by [email protected]
I think that, with the current state of OSes like Windows and Android, there should be some minimal amount of friction to enabling installation of non-vetted apps. Maybe some switch that can't be enabled accidentally, or without understanding that there's risk involved (or at least a switch that can be disabled and password protected) for the sake of children or the elderly.
On the other hand, though, an OS should be built with enough security and sandboxing that no single application can brick your entire device without at least tapping through and giving it a ton of permissions; which means that the only remaining risk to the end user would be access to disinformation or other harmful content, or the risk of personal information exfiltration (i.e. phishing). At that point, a simple block list (or even just an allow list) maintained by a trusted guardian or third party would be sufficient to keep children or the elderly from harmful content, and whoops we've just invented the internet again.
I am once again begging for Boot2Gecko to become a thing.
-
The key thing to understand is that there's a big fucking difference between a "repository" and an "app store." One is designed for the convenience of users; the other is designed to exploit them.
Exactly right. The message of the post is that "side-loading" is only used in reference to exploitation services. We could just as easily refer to side loading in Linux and it would be accurate in every way, except that there is no exploitation.
It's literally the exception that proves the rule.
-
Exactly. Locking basic services behind apps should be illegal. Services must be accessible to everyone.
same goes for the weather app ...
(context: some years ago they locked the publicly-funded german weather service's API, so common people can't access it anymore. you need to use a spam-ridden app to access it now.)
-
wrote last edited by [email protected]
my take on it is that it was a mistake to push end-to-end encryption on every chat. now the government wants to remove privacy for everyone, because some people are going to abuse it.
it would have been a better approach to make privacy through encryption possible, but somewhat technical so non-techy people aren't going to use it much.
context: EU tries to implement "chat control" (again) which is basically removing user's privacy on private chat messages by letting the government spy on it.
-
By your logic, 30 years ago you shouldn't have been trusted to have free reign over your system because you didn't know what you were doing yet.
But you did have free reign, you learned, and now you want to pull the ladder up behind you.
-
wrote last edited by [email protected]
I don't know where you think you wrote that, but it wasn't in this comment chain. Are you expecting me to go hunting through your user page or something? You are not fucking entitled to call me "illiterate" for responding to what you actually wrote here and not being clairvoyant!
If anything, you're the one who's [concern] trolling here, playing devil's advocate for Google.
-
I don't know where you think you wrote that, but it wasn't in this comment chain. Are you expecting me to go hunting through your user page or something? You are not fucking entitled to call me "illiterate" for responding to what you actually wrote here and not being clairvoyant!
If anything, you're the one who's [concern] trolling here, playing devil's advocate for Google.
Nope, right here in this thread, chief. Nearly an hour before you even chimed in. Not my fault you didn't read the comments before getting on your soapbox. Begone, clown.
-
By your logic, 30 years ago you shouldn't have been trusted to have free reign over your system because you didn't know what you were doing yet.
But you did have free reign, you learned, and now you want to pull the ladder up behind you.
By your logic, 30 years ago you shouldn't have been trusted to have free reign over your system because you didn't know what you were doing yet.
30 years ago I would've been a child. So... yeah. Not exactly somebody who should have the ability to give root access to any scuzzy app prompting for it.
But you did have free reign, you learned, and now you want to pull the ladder up behind you.
You assume a lot here.
-
same goes for the weather app ...
(context: some years ago they locked the publicly-funded german weather service's API, so common people can't access it anymore. you need to use a spam-ridden app to access it now.)
At the very least you can still pay a small one-time fee for the DWD WarnWetter app (or enter a code for firefighters).
Best 3€ I've ever spent purely out of spite, even if the reason behind it is complete BS.
-
I think that, with the current state of OSes like Windows and Android, there should be some minimal amount of friction to enabling installation of non-vetted apps. Maybe some switch that can't be enabled accidentally, or without understanding that there's risk involved (or at least a switch that can be disabled and password protected) for the sake of children or the elderly.
On the other hand, though, an OS should be built with enough security and sandboxing that no single application can brick your entire device without at least tapping through and giving it a ton of permissions; which means that the only remaining risk to the end user would be access to disinformation or other harmful content, or the risk of personal information exfiltration (i.e. phishing). At that point, a simple block list (or even just an allow list) maintained by a trusted guardian or third party would be sufficient to keep children or the elderly from harmful content, and whoops we've just invented the internet again.
I am once again begging for Boot2Gecko to become a thing.
Yeah I can accept some kind of "hey we can't verify this, you are on your own if you want to install" warning message, but if it prevents me then I don't want it.
-
Only in the US, I guess. In my country and in Europe this will not fly...
Aren’t they claiming this move is specifically to comply with the EU’s Digital Services act?
-
Not my fault you don't understand the difference between "thread" and "comment chain." Who's illiterate now?
Moreover, who the fuck do you think you are? You're not entitled to expect people to read anything but direct replies. You're just not that important.
-
my take on it is that it was a mistake to push end-to-end encryption on every chat. now the government wants to remove privacy for everyone, because some people are going to abuse it.
it would have been a better approach to make privacy through encryption possible, but somewhat technical so non-techy people aren't going to use it much.
context: EU tries to implement "chat control" (again) which is basically removing user's privacy on private chat messages by letting the government spy on it.
my take on it is that it was a mistake to push end-to-end encryption on every chat. now the government wants to remove privacy for everyone, because some people are going to abuse it.
I'm inclined to agree with this, even though I dislike it. I think encryption should be accessible to everybody, for any purpose, no questions asked. But, making it mainstream allowed certain powers to control the narrative. It's much easier to shift public opinions on something that most people know about, as opposed to something that's more niche. While everybody should have access to encryption, there is benefit to obscurity, as well.
-
No difference from checking IDs at the airport? So Google wants a government body to handle their platform on their behalf and to ensure a common playing field where at the airport I can choose whatever vendor I’d like?
No difference from checking IDs at the airport?
An airplane is a glorified autobus. You don't need an ID to get on one of those.
