upvote
Is it a serious problem that you can run whatever software you want on your computer? Should we make it so that no one can do that without permission to protect them?

I recommend Cory Doctorow's talk on why this is a serious problem for society:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Coming_War_on_General_Com...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg

reply
Yes, lots of vulnerable users get harmed by modern tech. E.g. people have lost their minds using AI, their livelihoods using smartphones, their life savings using the Internet. In general, I prefer a solution where any mental health issue (age-related infirmity, ADHD, etc.) result in protection from modern exploitative tech like this.

Every application use for such people should be supervised by a government official trained to ensure you are not hurting yourself.

This way people who want to use AI, smartphones, or the Internet can do so if they’re healthy and the mentally disabled can be protected. We know that this need exists because even on this “Hacker” News forum everyone gets very upset when a mentally disabled person gets injured after AI use.

reply
It's pretending to address a serious issue while giving Google significant power to limit distribution of apps Google doesn't like, which could sometimes include legal apps that certain governments don't like such as the recently famous ICEBlock.

Google says they don't intend to do that, but even if I believe that's their current intention, they have a strong incentive to do otherwise in the future. Incentives predict outcomes more reliably than intentions.

I say it's pretending because scammers are good at shifting tactics. If convincing users to install malware ceases to be the path of least resistance, they'll convince users to install legitimate remote access utilities, hand over credentials directly, or some other scheme I haven't thought up because I'm not a scammer.

reply
> they have a strong incentive to do otherwise in the future.

The reality is far worse than that. Remember FBI vs Apple? That defense came down to Apple not having software in place that could facilitate the demand being made of them. If they'd had such a system they would presumably have been required to comply.

The government can presumably get an illegal app forcibly removed from an app store but at present you could still install it yourself. With this system they could compel Google to block it entirely.

reply
"Meet me in the middle" says the unjust man.

You take a step forward.

He takes a step back.

"Meet me in the middle" says the unjust man.

reply
F-Droid has spent many years trying to step out of the "only for technical/power users" into the "This is a tool that normal phone users should have and use". A one time 24hr wait moves back to the "F-Droid is only for technical users" big time.

Bought a new phone? Moved from iPhone to Android? Want help from your friend/family member/librarian/other to setup your new phone for getting apps? Sorry, you need to come back a day later before you can actually use it.

Guess what the normal/non-tech user does in this 24hr period? Go to Play Store, install a bunch of apps, forget that you had the desire to use an alternative.

This indeed does make F-Droid no longer a tool for normal people, but only a tool for those willing to do a bunch of "Advanced" things on their phone. By definition, not regular users.

reply
It's only a "serious problem" because they want you to think it is.
reply
What's the serious problem?
reply