4 ms·
That is because a lot of people here see the masses of 'normal' or non-technically-inclined people that need to be protected against themselves because their us
by oneplane 6y ago
That is because a lot of people here see the masses of 'normal' or non-technically-inclined people that need to be protected against themselves because their usage of devices they do not understand has a real-world impact on everyone else when things go wrong.
There is no true ideal version of this, there is no perfect world and there is no situation in which you can have full control but also have full protection without also knowing everything about the system you have.
Phones and Computers are 'appliances' that do not need to be changed by the user (and we are talking about the mass-market user here), if anything it needs to prevent being changed by the user due to the larger ecosystem a device is part of.
You can make the choice to not be part of the ecosystem, but most people would very much like to be part of a system, together, and one way of doing that is to have a level of sameness and consistency that so far is not viable without some sort of 'appliance-like' properties of the devices in question.
You can still buy a different device, not take part in an existing system, and do whatever you want. But you will have a hard time getting the benefits of interconnection, scale, and support. Those three elements are pretty much why some brands or devices are sold in masses and some aren't.
To this end I simply have multiples of most things. Some just need to do what it does for everyone else (interconnect, function the same way every day, have some company bear responsibility for practically everything), others are for me (open source hardware, open source software, no protections, but also no end-user support or responsibility).
- paulryanrogers 6y ago> You can still buy a different device, not take part in an existing system, and do whatever you want This may not always be true, in a practical sense, for those with intense cultural pressure to fit in. And fitting in means having a green bubble, i.e. Apple phone.
- zepto 6y agoErm, Apple phones have blue bubbles. In any case nobody I know feels constrained by their choice of messenger app.
- admax88q 6y ago> In any case nobody I know feels constrained by their choice of messenger app. Probably because you've already excluded them
- zepto 6y agoVery amusing. But no - I mean because they use multiple apps. E.g. WhatsApp, or Facebook messenger, or Signal etc. Even the people I know who have iPhones tend to use these things. If I want to know what kind of phone someone uses, I generally have to ask. The thesis seems to be that people are so unable to think for themselves that they are compelled to choose their device by means of colored bubbles. If this is really true, then surely it’s the best argument one can possibly make for why the ecosystem needs to be locked down.
- admax88q 6y agoI'm only half joking. > You can still buy a different device, not take part in an existing system, and do whatever you want. The point is you can't. Intense social pressure to interact with people who _do_ take part in the existing system means you have to partake in the existing system to interact. My friends use Messenger so I need a facebook account, or my family uses WhatsApp so I need a non-rooted android phone. No mainstream messaging apps support federation and many are hostile towards reverse engineering. WhatsApp for example will permaban accounts who do not use official clients in the name of "security." You don't notice because you have already excluded anyone who chooses not to use a mainstream Android or iOS device. Or anyone you know who _would_ like to make that choice doesn't, cause they don't want to be that one friend who can't be reached as easily as the rest of the group.
- zepto 6y agoOk - so this is much more interesting than the more trivial green bubbles comment I originally replied to, which decidedly was not making this point. It’s true that if you need to interact with people on most of these systems, you need an account. I have a Facebook account I use only for messenger, and I would prefer not to. However, your argument has a few flaws. 1. I obviously haven’t excluded the people would would like to choose a non-mainstream device but who hasn’t. 2. You seem to assume that I won’t install apps so that I can communicate with people who don’t use the networks I’m already part of. That’s not a reasonable assumption. I have quite a few messaging apps installed, some of which I use with just one person. The question this raises for me is - are there any federated messaging networks that do not have any clients available for mainstream platforms, but are in significant use?
- perryizgr8 6y agoApart from the "green bubble" cultural pressure, the fact is that I cannot get a fully unlocked device at all if I want anything relatively modern. Tell me what is the "free" alternative for a top notch galaxy Note20 ultra or iphone 12 pro max.
- orloffm 6y agoThere is no alternative for iPhone 5S either.
- oneplane 6y agoYou can't get it because nobody can afford to make one. It's technically feasible but from a business perspective it's not something achievable; the closest would be something like the Pinephone, but that is suboptimal to say the least.
- oneplane 6y agoWell, that's what 'not take part in an existing system' stands for. If you want to be outside a social system, that can be your choice. If not, then you'll have to deal with all of the constraints. That could be ICQ vs. MSN vs. AIM vs. YIM or BBM vs SMS or now iMessage vs. WhatEver. The mass consumer market won't all join IRC to chat, they could have (and still can) for decades and it just isn't happening. And that's fine, but that also means that other systems (like iMessage but also Facebook) gain users with all the lock-in that comes with that.