3 ms·
>is accepting the moral responsibility for fixing security issues for those users. They are now abandoning those users. Google is a business. They decided to s
by kybernetyk 11y ago
>is accepting the moral responsibility for fixing security issues for those users. They are now abandoning those users.
Google is a business. They decided to stop supporting a platform they don't think is relevant to their business anymore. There is no "moral" responsibility there besides looking at what's good for Google.
If users (customers) decided back then that they'd rather have free browsers and didn't support commercial (paid) alternatives they are now the only ones to blame for this happening. At this point the user can't even vote with their wallet now. They willingly gave away all their power for free stuff.
Clinging onto some "moral responsibility" is delusional. Now I get the allure of free stuff. But I also think many people blissfully ignore the fact that everything they do will have some form of consequences down the road and that there is no "free" stuff in life.
- anon1385 11y agoMorality has nothing to do with money changing hands or not. People would consider it immoral for Google to fail to patch serious vulnerabilities in Chrome on supported platforms, even though Chrome is free. Why? Because Google advertises Chrome as being secure and failing to patch it leaves millions of people vulnerable to exploitation. It's very disturbing that there are people in the tech industry who think that giving a product away for free absolves you of any moral responsibility.