1005
Language
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2025
1005 points (100.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
9000 readers
2068 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
These guys forget that they are an incredibly stark minority of users. Most users cannot be trusted to have free reign over their own system. We all know this to be true. You've troubleshot your grandma's Jitterbug phone that somehow had Internet Explorer toolbars installed onto it, you know this to be true.
Maybe there is no reasonable case for a developer to have any say over what you - specifically you, the guy who knows what "*nix" means - do with your hardware. But there are plenty of reasonable cases for the other 99.99% of users.
Posts like this are like a mechanic saying "There is no reason for a manufacturer to force drivers into having a catalytic converter in their own engine". Like... okay, maybe your car is special because you're a literal expert, but the rest of the world need that thing because they can't be trusted to manage their emissions on their own.
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.
Cool, I never claimed anything even close to what you just vomited out. Here's what I did say, though:
That's all I was claiming, my guy. Go find your "gotcha" moment somewhere else, because it ain't here.
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.
Are you illiterate or just trolling?
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.
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.
🤡
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.
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.
You assume a lot here.
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.
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.
You already can't "sideload" without navigating the options and going through a big scary pop-up saying you better know what you're doing. In other words, it's already locked down enough.
This is not about making grandma safe. It is about control.
That's fine. They should be LEGALLY required to allow ME to make that call and offer an avenue to allow me to remove it all.
Nobody is saying everyone's machine MUST be completely open and insecure.
But that's a far cry from giving me no recourse to make MY hardware do what I want it to.
And before anybody screams "liability", they're going to hold you to an EULA anyway - throw a couple lines in there.
Neither am I. I don't disagree that Google is overstepping with the restrictions they're imposing lately. It's a point I'll damn well argue, myself.
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.
But these users can fuck their phone up perfectly fine with the offerings provided by the horribly curated play store and thats even intentional. I dont doubt there are also techilliterate users who seek out dodgy sites to sideload some shitty apk. But i dont believe google one bit this move is made to make the experience more secure for this subset of users. Its about as much control as possible over their platform because the line must go up.
It's in their financial interests if their platforms aren't synonymous with data breaches. So yes, the security of users is a prerequisite to their profit-driven goals.
People cannot be trusted to govern themselves, this is why I am supporting the redcoats. HAIL KING GEORGE III! /s
It's more along the lines of "There's no reason for manufacturers to forbid my mechanic from installing a perfectly fine catalytic converter just because said manufacturer doesn't like it"
Giving manufacturers full control over the software users run will not end well. Why should google tolerate a browser that runs an adblock extension? Currently they do so because the alternative would be losing users to alternatives but if they have all android devices under control and make deals with most of the browser devs (it's all chromium already and firefox is almost entirely financed by google) then you'll find yourself forced to watch ads. This is what they're slowly creeping towards.
That would be true, if the Play store was curated any better.
You can still upload malware to the Play store. It happened numerous times, both on the Apple side, and on the Google Side.
Restricting your choice from 2 places of dodgy places to 1 dodgy place does nothing.