1001
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
1001 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
I strongly disagree. There is absolutely a use case for my mom not needing me to wipe her phone every time she tries to get Duolingo or whatever.
There is no scenario where an entire segment of devices should be locked to two companies having full control of what software can run worldwide, though. That part demands regulatory intervention.
One person's inability to use a common device is not an excuse to make it worse for everyone else.
My parents are pretty incompetent when it comes to tech, but it wasn't difficult for them to understand not to install random shit and call if in doubt.
It's not one person, it's the vast majority of the userbase.
Which, to be clear, is again not a reason to have a duopoly decide what software can be made or executed in the first place. It's fine to have Google decide what the Play store will carry, and it's even fine for Android devices to require a manual bypass to run unsigned software. It's not fine for Apple and Google (and I guess Huawei by necessity) to have final arbitrary say on what software is acceptable on all handheld mobile devices.
That's the same argument people used to praise Microsoft for forcing mandatory updates.
Every year they force untested updates breaking the OS or even bricking the hardware.
And Windows is still vulnerable despite the updates.
This is weird in so many ways I have a hard time keeping track.
I mean, no, it's not the same argument. One thing is about how when you have billions of handheld devices largely meant to function as out-of-the-box platforms for specific uses for non-tech savvy users it helps to have them locked out of the box to minimize software issues and maintenance. The other is about peace of mind and automated upkeep during downtime.
But at the same time... yeah, automated updates (which is not the same as mandatory updates) are a good thing. Especially for mainstream home computers that don't have a sysadmin looking after them from a centralized location and have their upkeep down to whatever an individual user decides to do and when. There's a reason a number of Linux distros meant for home devices also install updates in the background. It's a good idea for gaming devices and home computers. The thing that used to piss people off about MS updates is that they used to interrupt people's work to make them happen, which was exceedingly stupid.
None of which has anything to do with Windows or Microsoft pushing bad updates. Bad updates are bad and they aren't any better for not being automated. Nobody cares if you updated yourself or the OS did it for you. If the system pushes a bad patch that bricks your system that's really bad. That should never happen. For the record, it has happened to me way more often on Linux, but your mileage may vary.
And nooone of that has anything to do with vulnerabilities persisting. All systems have vulnerabilities. It's about striking the right balance between how bad those are and how practical it is to close them up. You keep things as secure as you can while keeping them usable, based on what they are being used for.
What exactly are you trying to argue here?
You say automated updates good, mandatory updates maybe not?
But there's no difference on Windows, that's the point. You, as a user, get no choice.
You will get broken updates and unwanted features whenever they decide, because it's ultimately about the same thing with both MS and Android: taking away your control of your devices.
No, it's about implementation. Implementation is implementation. If you want to discuss software in terms of principle we're going to have a very short conversation. "You, as a user get no choice" because "they are taking away your control of your devices" is a meaningless statement.
I am arguing that yeah, there are scenarios where limiting the ability to install or run unsigned software at the user level makes perfect sense. Honestly, it may make sense most of the time. The mirage that it does not comes from mostly spending time in home computers where the only user is also the person acting as an admin.
Do I feel that most, if not all, devices should allow full access to a consenting user that understands they are very likely about to nuke their thing? Yeah, sure! It's basic right to repair. But pretending that automating maintenance tasks or adding access restrictions is a fundamental, ideological problem is just... not how this works.
I think the change Google has announced is unacceptable. Just not for the reasons you're describing and certainly not in the way you're describing them. The difference is very important, because the last thing we need is a roaming mob of online dilettantes arguing that any restriction to access is a betrayal of fundamental freedoms.
Which, frankly, is how we ended up with the dumb notion that there's no reason why you wouldn't want your home computer updating itself every time you reboot it. Which in turn has nothing to do with the ability to not do that if the OS is running on something that is NOT a home computer where somebody needs to have manual control over what changes and when.
You're right that there's value in having a software repository with "vetted" apps in it. And at the same time, there's a difference between "here's stuff we've done some kind of due diligence on" and "you aren't allowed to install anything we haven't okayed." That's what Apple and now Google are doing.
(I also think there's value in having a word like "sideload" to describe the action of installing software not in a repository. It's just that it's tied up now in this paternal attitude from the big companies)
Yep. No disagreement from me on any of that.
At most I'd argue that I don't mind that Apple does that as long as someone else does not. If Apple wants to have a closed system that's all good, but from the perspective of regulation and anti-trust you can't have EVERY platform be closed. You need at least one viable open competitor to prevent the owners of the hardware from owning all the software by definition. It's just like I don't have a problem with Nintendo needing to certify all the games on the Switch as long as there is a Steam Deck, or Sony certifying PS5 games as long as you can run games on a PC.
But if all the software on the planet had to be on either the PS5 store or the Nintendo eShop I would absolutely have a problem with those being locked down. That's what this shift means for the mobile market.
That just sounds like the system needs a separate "Admin" mode to do things like that. Your mom can take the risk of messing with that herself (which can be very educational!), or leave that for you or someone else to handle. But that would let her make a more informed choice, even without technical ability.
Sure. I don't disagree with that. In fact, that's how it currently works on Android, more or less. It's actually looser now than it has been in the past.
But "informed choice without technical ability" is not a thing. You can't be informed if you don't understand what you're doing. People online that more or less understand computers but don't necessarily understand how other people interact with computers tend to miss how this works. My mom doesn't choose to take risks or not, she won't read what's on the screen and if she reads it she won't understand it, and if she understands it she won't trust it, because she doesn't have the knowledge to distinguish a genuine message from the OS trying to ask for confirmation from a janky physhing request.
My mom thinks Whatsapp messages can hack her bank account and freaks out every time her phone asks her to reboot for an update. She doesn't have the time or interest to get to a place where she can change that, and more to the point she shouldn't have to. It's prefectly fine to buy a device that will only let you do the things you want to do and won't let you do the rest.
As you say, that device just needs some process by which someone who cares and knows how to do more stuff can reclaim full access.
Yeah this is where I'm at too, there is no reason these device makers should be locking us out of doing what we want with our phones. Their app store can exist along side other install options and compete on usability instead of monopoly.
Yep. I don't need Google to let me install apks freely and I don't need them to host everything on the Play store with zero supervision.
But I do need F-Droid to keep working and to be able to install software that Google has zero visibility on, or a way to unlock my device to be able to sideload stuff. There is zero reasonable argument to say that Google is the only valid arbiter of signed software on the planet.