14 ms·

Almost all of this is heavily exaggerated, presenting relatively innocuous features as if they were harmful, or calling out simple bugs as if they were intentio

Almost all of this is heavily exaggerated, presenting relatively innocuous features as if they were harmful, or calling out simple bugs as if they were intentional and actively malicious. None of it is flat-out wrong per-se (at least as far as I can tell), and I can certainly see where GNU is coming from, but I think for the average user most of the features they're criticizing actually do a lot more good than harm. Just a few examples, to demonstrate my point: - They describe Google's demonstrated ability to remove malware from user's devices as a "backdoor" - They describe parental controls as "censorship" - They consider the fact that Android supports DRM "malware" - They cite the fact that Android malware exists as a security flaw. (Ignoring the fact that there is basically no OS in existence that can't be infected with malware.) - They consider the ability for users to remotely reset their Android lockscreen combo if they know their Google account password a "back door" - They describe a bug where Google Assistant incorrectly identified the "Okay Google" hotword as "Google Assistant recording users' conversations" - They describe the fact that a Google message app doesn't delete conversations until the user asks it to as "surveillance" Again, I'm not saying this point of view is necessarily wrong. From a certain point of view, all of the claims I described above are actually quite logical. (I even find myself agreeing with some of them.) But from the perspective of the average user, the vast majority of this stuff simply isn't worth worrying about, and I think it's a little extreme to characterize it as "malware". Just something to keep in mind.

normalhuman 7y ago
The average user certainly doesn't worry about any of this, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't. The worst, of course, is the tragedy of the commons dynamics. A lot of harm that comes from surveillance capitalism does not affect someone in particular, but it amounts to great damage to society as a whole. For example, by degrading public discourse, addicting people to screen time while robbing them of living their actual lives, and assisting authoritarian regimes in oppressing their own people (project dragonfly).
- nolok 7y ago
  > The average user certainly doesn't worry about any of this, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't. I think the point he was making, in part, was that if the average user worried about those things, they would WANT most of those features and decisions.
  - normalhuman 7y ago
    Sure, that is why I mention the tragedy of the commons. People (me included, I'm not claiming to be a saint) very easily rationalize exchanging short-term personal comfort for the long term social good, and the adtech people know this very well.
- decoyworker 7y ago
  If we are in the business of telling society what they SHOULD care about I'd wager about a hundred other things are more important than free software.
whatshisface 7y ago
If you come at it from the perspective that Google is your friend, as in not like a real friend (who I wouldn't let change my passwords), but a friend that's even better than a real friend, then sure, these points are paranoid. The GNU perspective is very distrustful of the idea that anyone else should be administrating their devices, and refuses to trust any corporation more than they would a friend.
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  Google is not your friend. Google is a multi-billion dollar international corporation which sells advertising. It does have a good marketing team that makes cutesy artwork for it's PR campaigns though.
- skybrian 7y ago
  Your "friend" analogy is basically the perspective of someone who wouldn't put their money in a bank. If you wouldn't trust a friend to hold thousands of dollars for you, why would you trust a bank? It's questionable whether Google deserves similar trust as a bank since they aren't regulated in a similar way. But it isn't unusual for people to trust companies over friends for some things, such as their life savings. The other thing to remember is that trust can be partial. For example, I wouldn't trust a bank not to be looking for legal ways to charge me fees and I wouldn't trust their investment advice, but I'd trust them to keep their ATM's working and not to lose my money.
  - badrequest 7y ago
    You bring up regulatory controls on banks, but then dismiss them as if most folks would willingly put their money into them if the regulations weren't there. If you'd trust the bank with your money without the regulations, I'd love to send you details about the bank I'm forming.
    - lazyasciiart 7y ago
      Most folks, maybe not. Everyone who's ever used bitcoin though....
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tathougies 7y ago
> Ignoring the fact that there is basically no OS in existence that can't be infected with malware. To be fair to GNU, GNU Hurd cannot be infected with malware because no one is quite sure how to install it and keep it running for any meaningful amount of time.
- cptskippy 7y ago
  I thought it was agreed that Security through obscurity was frowned upon.
  - tylerl 7y ago
    No no, it's all self consistent. Safe computers are a fiction. Computers running GNU Hurd are a fiction. It fits.
jbob2000 7y ago
It sounds like GNU have a very constrained view on what a computer does and is used for. From reading this, it sounds like they want a computer (and by extension, its OS) to be a thing that sits on a desk and is operated on in very distinct ways.
leshow 7y ago
> - They describe Google's demonstrated ability to remove malware from user's devices as a "backdoor" from wikipedia "A backdoor is a method, often secret, of bypassing normal authentication or encryption in a computer system, a product, or an embedded device " Seems to fit. > - They describe parental controls as "censorship" "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient"." Also seems to fit. I could go on about the other points, but most of it is true almost by definition.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- creeble 7y ago
  Aren't the parental controls voluntary censorship? That is requested by the user? True by definition, but not by intent.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Depends on who you consider the user. Children subject to parental control censorship aren't voluntary parties.
    - mav3rick 7y ago
      This is such BS. When you put a baby in a car seat and he/she starts crying, you don't have their consent. However, legally the parent is the guardian of the child and is responsible for the well being. Stop using semantic bullshit to justify random arguments.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        It's not semantic bullshit. It depends on what value you substitute for "child" when you think about it. It's different when you're thinking 5yo vs. 15yo. If anything, being outraged at calling parental controls censorship is what's bullshit. "Censorship is bad and protecting children is good, therefore parental controls are not censorship". We could instead call spade a spade, and then talk about when its use is justified.
scblock 7y ago
Absolutely this. There are real issues worth real discussion, both on this post and their related Apple post. But these are the posts of a conspiracy theorist instead; they don't enable any sort of rational discussion.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  How is that? All the claims are strictly true. They just carry a moral judgement some people disagree with, and most people don't care about. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's enumeration of facts.
  - lazyasciiart 7y ago
    It is an incomplete enumeration of facts which presents a biased picture. This is not some kind of novel technique, it's been around for a long time under the name "lying by omission".
  - CobrastanJorji 7y ago
    There are facts in here, but they're very selective facts. For example, in the "Sabotage" section, it describes how by turning off a server, Google turned a device "into a $300 out-of-warranty brick." Now, it is a fact that the device did cost $300 and it was out-of-warranty, but pointing out that the device is out of warranty without also pointing out that Google offered full refunds for all of the devices is deceptive wording.
  - mikejb 7y ago
    > All the claims are strictly true. They just carry a moral judgement some people disagree with, and most people don't care about. This is a poor standard. For example: > Kim Jong-un is an elected leader It's technically correct, but it does not provide any useful information, and could be classified as heavily misleading. But hey, technically it's true!
  - jcranberry 7y ago
    Facts can be used to deceive or manipulate. It's called cherry picking. The post is guilty of it.
realplayer6 7y ago
exaggerated maybe, but they are still facts? what other huge tech started implementing parental controls?
johannes1234321 7y ago
Picking a random point: DRM is malware. It is extra software with the only purpose to limit what I can do. Of course there is no alternative as long as consumers accept it. And consumers don't care since it all seems to work.
- new_realist 7y ago
  If DRM allows you to consume content you would not otherwise have access to, it is a feature. What does it limit you from doing, in particular? Running custom software on your device? That’s a funny definition of malware.
  - hyperhopper 7y ago
    DRM doesn't allow you to consume content. There is nothing technical about DRM that helps deliver content to me. I think you may be referring to businesses making an anti-user decision to withhold content, and mistaking exceptions to that to be things useful to a user.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      I don't see how it's an anti-user decision. Whether it's bits over the network or physical stuff, why should they have to send me their product if they don't want to?
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        DRM isn't about them not sending the product - it's about them sending the product and then hijacking the computer I own to prevent me from using the product the way I like. DRM schemes are anti-user decisions in the sense that users are presented with a choice of either allowing companies to hijack their machines to enforce a subpar experience, or walking away.
        spookthesunset 7y ago
dredmorbius 7y ago
FSF have an incredibly annoying track record of being precisely right, about a decade ahead of everyone else. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html
- pvg 7y ago
  If you squint hard enough, cherry pick and are highly motivated, more or less anyone who makes sweeping predictions about the future can be 'precisely right'. Even this particular essay isn't really 'precisely right', never mind every single prediction, dire warning or position the FSF has ever taken.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  Pretty much nothing here resembles the world I live in. Can you precisely articulate which pieces are right now? I've been reading a lot recently, and so buying a lot of books. Some digital, some not. As far as I can tell I own a single copy of the physical ones. I can transfer them to someone by handing them my copy. I can do the same with digital ones. It's legal for other people to read my paperback, or for me to hand them my Kindle. I can even, get this, do stuff to the mobi file I get when I download the ebook. What am I missing?
  - AndunD 7y ago
    Being poor and computer illiterate. No space for books and no software for cracking DRM.
  - zeveb 7y ago
    > What am I missing? Amazon can — and have — reach into your Kindle and delete books you have there (notably, they did this to 1984, proving that real life can be ironic). You cannot lend one Kindle book to someone else, without lending the entire Kindle. Your phone, computer and TV run binary code which can do literally anything (say, logging your passwords and transmitting them in unused protocol headers), which you are not permitted to remove or modify, in the name of DRM and similar user-restricting technologies.
OrgNet 7y ago
> - They describe Google's demonstrated ability to remove malware from user's devices as a "backdoor" It is a backdoor... They can install or remove any apps on my device without my authorization and I cannot disable "that feature" even if I know about it. So it's almost like a rootkit.
sieabahlpark 7y ago
> They consider the ability for users to remotely reset their Android lockscreen combo if they know their Google account password a "back door" It literally is a backdoor into your phone. Whether it's ethical or not depends if they've ever used it with law enforcement or for their own personal gain. > They describe a bug where Google Assistant incorrectly identified the "Okay Google" hotword as "Google Assistant recording users' conversations" This isn't necessarily great but I've run into situations where it activated on completely unrelated phrases. Is it Google's best interest as an ad company to sell data to fix this? No. The issues you see as someone else pointed out are because you implicitly trust Google. I personally don't trust Google. The fact they manipulate their products for "algorithmic fairness" is proof they have ulterior motives one way or another. Is it that far of a stretch to think they could be abusing other components of their platform either intentionally or not?
joelx 7y ago
I agree with you, this appears to be part of the lies and false narratives put out by evil totalitarian regimes in China and Russia to distract us from their activities. Especially since these tech companies are leading lights on human rights.
modzu 7y ago
"Although Google's exercise of this power has not been malicious so far, the point is that nobody should have such power, which could also be used maliciously. You might well decide to let a security service remotely deactivate programs that it considers malicious. But there is no excuse for allowing it to delete the programs, and you should have the right to decide who (if anyone) to trust in this way."
mwfunk 7y ago
This is my #1 issue with the FSF, and a lot of these types of arguments originate with RMS himself. RMS has always put a lot of energy into trying to get people to use other words to describe common things, and the other words always spin those things in some really obvious and extreme way. Insisting that everyone say GNU/Linux is the one most people are familiar with, but other things like always referring to DRM as "Digital Restrictions Management", etc. Or heck, trying to redefine the very generic but positive word "free" to mean a whole host of very very specific and often unintuitive things. The FSF/RMS insistence on calling things by different words seems so irrational and dishonest. Likewise with taking common words with many meanings (like "free") and claiming that word as their own, then claiming that what "free" really means in the context of software can only be expressed once you tack on several KB of legalese that tells you what you can't do with it and how you're a bad person if you do. It's like the naming of the PATRIOT Act- it had nothing to do with patriotism, but it surely changed people's perceptions of it in subtle ways. What congressman would vote against patriotism? How could anyone be opposed to freedom? It's the same BS rhetorical trick, and it makes whoever uses that trick seem less honest and more irrational (to me at least). It's still an effective propaganda technique, which is exactly why they should avoid these sorts of rhetorical tricks. I don't want to hear their propaganda, I want to hear their philosophy. Because if their philosophy is truly built on a foundation of propaganda and rhetorical tricks, then their philosophy is meaningless. I agree with much of what the FSF advocates but they've always done such a terrible job advocating for it.

normalhuman 7y ago

The average user certainly doesn't worry about any of this, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't. The worst, of course, is the tragedy of the commons dynamics. A lot of harm that comes from surveillance capitalism does not affect someone in particular, but it amounts to great damage to society as a whole. For example, by degrading public discourse, addicting people to screen time while robbing them of living their actual lives, and assisting authoritarian regimes in oppressing their own people (project dragonfly).

nolok 7y ago
> The average user certainly doesn't worry about any of this, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't. I think the point he was making, in part, was that if the average user worried about those things, they would WANT most of those features and decisions.
- normalhuman 7y ago
  Sure, that is why I mention the tragedy of the commons. People (me included, I'm not claiming to be a saint) very easily rationalize exchanging short-term personal comfort for the long term social good, and the adtech people know this very well.
decoyworker 7y ago
If we are in the business of telling society what they SHOULD care about I'd wager about a hundred other things are more important than free software.

whatshisface 7y ago

If you come at it from the perspective that Google is your friend, as in not like a real friend (who I wouldn't let change my passwords), but a friend that's even better than a real friend, then sure, these points are paranoid. The GNU perspective is very distrustful of the idea that anyone else should be administrating their devices, and refuses to trust any corporation more than they would a friend.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago
Google is not your friend. Google is a multi-billion dollar international corporation which sells advertising. It does have a good marketing team that makes cutesy artwork for it's PR campaigns though.
skybrian 7y ago
Your "friend" analogy is basically the perspective of someone who wouldn't put their money in a bank. If you wouldn't trust a friend to hold thousands of dollars for you, why would you trust a bank? It's questionable whether Google deserves similar trust as a bank since they aren't regulated in a similar way. But it isn't unusual for people to trust companies over friends for some things, such as their life savings. The other thing to remember is that trust can be partial. For example, I wouldn't trust a bank not to be looking for legal ways to charge me fees and I wouldn't trust their investment advice, but I'd trust them to keep their ATM's working and not to lose my money.
- badrequest 7y ago
  You bring up regulatory controls on banks, but then dismiss them as if most folks would willingly put their money into them if the regulations weren't there. If you'd trust the bank with your money without the regulations, I'd love to send you details about the bank I'm forming.
  - lazyasciiart 7y ago
    Most folks, maybe not. Everyone who's ever used bitcoin though....

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

tathougies 7y ago

> Ignoring the fact that there is basically no OS in existence that can't be infected with malware. To be fair to GNU, GNU Hurd cannot be infected with malware because no one is quite sure how to install it and keep it running for any meaningful amount of time.

cptskippy 7y ago
I thought it was agreed that Security through obscurity was frowned upon.
- tylerl 7y ago
  No no, it's all self consistent. Safe computers are a fiction. Computers running GNU Hurd are a fiction. It fits.

jbob2000 7y ago

It sounds like GNU have a very constrained view on what a computer does and is used for. From reading this, it sounds like they want a computer (and by extension, its OS) to be a thing that sits on a desk and is operated on in very distinct ways.

leshow 7y ago

> - They describe Google's demonstrated ability to remove malware from user's devices as a "backdoor" from wikipedia "A backdoor is a method, often secret, of bypassing normal authentication or encryption in a computer system, a product, or an embedded device " Seems to fit. > - They describe parental controls as "censorship" "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient"." Also seems to fit. I could go on about the other points, but most of it is true almost by definition.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
creeble 7y ago
Aren't the parental controls voluntary censorship? That is requested by the user? True by definition, but not by intent.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Depends on who you consider the user. Children subject to parental control censorship aren't voluntary parties.
  - mav3rick 7y ago
    This is such BS. When you put a baby in a car seat and he/she starts crying, you don't have their consent. However, legally the parent is the guardian of the child and is responsible for the well being. Stop using semantic bullshit to justify random arguments.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      It's not semantic bullshit. It depends on what value you substitute for "child" when you think about it. It's different when you're thinking 5yo vs. 15yo. If anything, being outraged at calling parental controls censorship is what's bullshit. "Censorship is bad and protecting children is good, therefore parental controls are not censorship". We could instead call spade a spade, and then talk about when its use is justified.

scblock 7y ago

Absolutely this. There are real issues worth real discussion, both on this post and their related Apple post. But these are the posts of a conspiracy theorist instead; they don't enable any sort of rational discussion.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
How is that? All the claims are strictly true. They just carry a moral judgement some people disagree with, and most people don't care about. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's enumeration of facts.
- lazyasciiart 7y ago
  It is an incomplete enumeration of facts which presents a biased picture. This is not some kind of novel technique, it's been around for a long time under the name "lying by omission".
- CobrastanJorji 7y ago
  There are facts in here, but they're very selective facts. For example, in the "Sabotage" section, it describes how by turning off a server, Google turned a device "into a $300 out-of-warranty brick." Now, it is a fact that the device did cost $300 and it was out-of-warranty, but pointing out that the device is out of warranty without also pointing out that Google offered full refunds for all of the devices is deceptive wording.
- mikejb 7y ago
  > All the claims are strictly true. They just carry a moral judgement some people disagree with, and most people don't care about. This is a poor standard. For example: > Kim Jong-un is an elected leader It's technically correct, but it does not provide any useful information, and could be classified as heavily misleading. But hey, technically it's true!
- jcranberry 7y ago
  Facts can be used to deceive or manipulate. It's called cherry picking. The post is guilty of it.

realplayer6 7y ago

exaggerated maybe, but they are still facts? what other huge tech started implementing parental controls?

johannes1234321 7y ago

Picking a random point: DRM is malware. It is extra software with the only purpose to limit what I can do. Of course there is no alternative as long as consumers accept it. And consumers don't care since it all seems to work.

new_realist 7y ago
If DRM allows you to consume content you would not otherwise have access to, it is a feature. What does it limit you from doing, in particular? Running custom software on your device? That’s a funny definition of malware.
- hyperhopper 7y ago
  DRM doesn't allow you to consume content. There is nothing technical about DRM that helps deliver content to me. I think you may be referring to businesses making an anti-user decision to withhold content, and mistaking exceptions to that to be things useful to a user.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    I don't see how it's an anti-user decision. Whether it's bits over the network or physical stuff, why should they have to send me their product if they don't want to?
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      DRM isn't about them not sending the product - it's about them sending the product and then hijacking the computer I own to prevent me from using the product the way I like. DRM schemes are anti-user decisions in the sense that users are presented with a choice of either allowing companies to hijack their machines to enforce a subpar experience, or walking away.
      - spookthesunset 7y ago

dredmorbius 7y ago

FSF have an incredibly annoying track record of being precisely right, about a decade ahead of everyone else. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html

pvg 7y ago
If you squint hard enough, cherry pick and are highly motivated, more or less anyone who makes sweeping predictions about the future can be 'precisely right'. Even this particular essay isn't really 'precisely right', never mind every single prediction, dire warning or position the FSF has ever taken.
joshuamorton 7y ago
Pretty much nothing here resembles the world I live in. Can you precisely articulate which pieces are right now? I've been reading a lot recently, and so buying a lot of books. Some digital, some not. As far as I can tell I own a single copy of the physical ones. I can transfer them to someone by handing them my copy. I can do the same with digital ones. It's legal for other people to read my paperback, or for me to hand them my Kindle. I can even, get this, do stuff to the mobi file I get when I download the ebook. What am I missing?
- AndunD 7y ago
  Being poor and computer illiterate. No space for books and no software for cracking DRM.
- zeveb 7y ago
  > What am I missing? Amazon can — and have — reach into your Kindle and delete books you have there (notably, they did this to 1984, proving that real life can be ironic). You cannot lend one Kindle book to someone else, without lending the entire Kindle. Your phone, computer and TV run binary code which can do literally anything (say, logging your passwords and transmitting them in unused protocol headers), which you are not permitted to remove or modify, in the name of DRM and similar user-restricting technologies.

OrgNet 7y ago

> - They describe Google's demonstrated ability to remove malware from user's devices as a "backdoor" It is a backdoor... They can install or remove any apps on my device without my authorization and I cannot disable "that feature" even if I know about it. So it's almost like a rootkit.

sieabahlpark 7y ago

> They consider the ability for users to remotely reset their Android lockscreen combo if they know their Google account password a "back door" It literally is a backdoor into your phone. Whether it's ethical or not depends if they've ever used it with law enforcement or for their own personal gain. > They describe a bug where Google Assistant incorrectly identified the "Okay Google" hotword as "Google Assistant recording users' conversations" This isn't necessarily great but I've run into situations where it activated on completely unrelated phrases. Is it Google's best interest as an ad company to sell data to fix this? No. The issues you see as someone else pointed out are because you implicitly trust Google. I personally don't trust Google. The fact they manipulate their products for "algorithmic fairness" is proof they have ulterior motives one way or another. Is it that far of a stretch to think they could be abusing other components of their platform either intentionally or not?

joelx 7y ago

I agree with you, this appears to be part of the lies and false narratives put out by evil totalitarian regimes in China and Russia to distract us from their activities. Especially since these tech companies are leading lights on human rights.

modzu 7y ago

"Although Google's exercise of this power has not been malicious so far, the point is that nobody should have such power, which could also be used maliciously. You might well decide to let a security service remotely deactivate programs that it considers malicious. But there is no excuse for allowing it to delete the programs, and you should have the right to decide who (if anyone) to trust in this way."

mwfunk 7y ago

This is my #1 issue with the FSF, and a lot of these types of arguments originate with RMS himself. RMS has always put a lot of energy into trying to get people to use other words to describe common things, and the other words always spin those things in some really obvious and extreme way. Insisting that everyone say GNU/Linux is the one most people are familiar with, but other things like always referring to DRM as "Digital Restrictions Management", etc. Or heck, trying to redefine the very generic but positive word "free" to mean a whole host of very very specific and often unintuitive things. The FSF/RMS insistence on calling things by different words seems so irrational and dishonest. Likewise with taking common words with many meanings (like "free") and claiming that word as their own, then claiming that what "free" really means in the context of software can only be expressed once you tack on several KB of legalese that tells you what you can't do with it and how you're a bad person if you do. It's like the naming of the PATRIOT Act- it had nothing to do with patriotism, but it surely changed people's perceptions of it in subtle ways. What congressman would vote against patriotism? How could anyone be opposed to freedom? It's the same BS rhetorical trick, and it makes whoever uses that trick seem less honest and more irrational (to me at least). It's still an effective propaganda technique, which is exactly why they should avoid these sorts of rhetorical tricks. I don't want to hear their propaganda, I want to hear their philosophy. Because if their philosophy is truly built on a foundation of propaganda and rhetorical tricks, then their philosophy is meaningless. I agree with much of what the FSF advocates but they've always done such a terrible job advocating for it.