6 ms·
I honestly don't like too much these smug takes > 1) You willingly delegated the decision of what code is allowed to run on your devices to the manufacturer (2
by gjulianm 5y ago
I honestly don't like too much these smug takes
> 1) You willingly delegated the decision of what code is allowed to run on your devices to the manufacturer (2009). Smart voices warned you of today's present even then.
99% of the population will delegate the decision of what code is allowed to run to someone, be it the manufacturer, the government, some guy on the Internet or whatever. For that 99% of the population, by the way, it's actually more beneficial to have restrictions on what software can be installed to avoid malware.
> 2) You willingly got yourself irrevocably vendor-locked by participating in their closed social networks, so that it's almost impossible to leave (2006).
"Impossible to leave" is not a matter of closed or open, but it's a matter of social networks in general. You could make Facebook free software and its problems wouldn't disappear.
Not to mention that, again, 99% of people will get vendor-locked because in the end nobody wants to run their own instance of a federated social network.
> You willingly switched over essentially all human communication to said social networks, despite the obvious warning signs. (2006-2021)
Yes, it's been years since I talked someone face to face or on the phone and I cannot send letters anymore.
> 4) Finally you showed no resistance to these private companies when they started deciding what content should be allowed or banned, even when it got purely political (2020).
No resistance? I mean, it's been quite a lot of discussion and pushback on social networks for their decisions on content. Things move slow, but "no resistance" is quite the understatement.
> Now they're getting more brazen. And why shouldn't they? You'll obey.
Is this Mr. Robot talking now?
But now more seriously, in December the European Electronic Communications Code comes into effect, and while it's true that there's a temporary derogation that allows these CSAM scanners, there's quite a big debate around it and things will change.
The main problem with privacy and computer control is a collective one that must be solved through laws. Thinking that individual action and free software will solve it is completely utopic. A majority of the people will delegate control over their computing devices to another entity because most people don't have both knowledge and time to do it, and that entity will always have the option to go rogue. And, unfortunately, regulation takes time.
Anyways, one should wonder why, after all these years of these kinds of smug messages, we're in this situation. Maybe the solutions and the way of communicating the problems is wrong, you know.
- fsflover 5y ago> "Impossible to leave" is not a matter of closed or open, but it's a matter of social networks in general. You could make Facebook free software and its problems wouldn't disappear. Not true. If you have interoperability between different networks, you can leave. This is how ActivityPub (e.g. Mastodon, PeerTube, PixelFed) works. > Not to mention that, again, 99% of people will get vendor-locked because in the end nobody wants to run their own instance of a federated social network. You just switch to any other instance, because Mastodon doesn't prevent you from doing that. > The main problem with privacy and computer control is a collective one that must be solved through laws. Thinking that individual action and free software will solve it is completely utopic. We need both. You cannot force Facebook to allow interoperability when there is no other social network.
- gjulianm 5y ago> If you have interoperability between different networks, you can leave If all your friends are in a Mastodon instance and you think that instance is scanning your messages, you'll find it hard to leave because leaving the instance for another that doesn't share messages with that one means stopping communication with your friends. > You just switch to any other instance, because Mastodon doesn't prevent you from doing that. Controlled by another third party. Not to mention that, with enough users, there will be feature divergence so "switching" won't be that easy. Want a real world example? See email. Open protocol with multiple client-server implementations. However, most people use one of the major providers (Google, Microsoft...), there are incompatibilities between clients and even if you "can switch", it's not that easy nor gets done often. Yes, you can switch to ProtonMail or something more secure if you want, but that won't solve the problems of the 99% of people that will use general providers and won't even know they can't switch. > We need both. You cannot force Facebook to allow interoperability when there is no other social network. Right now you could force Facebook to be interoperable and be open source and still 99% of the people would be on the original Facebook instance. Again, it's not a technical issue.
- fsflover 5y ago> Controlled by another third party. Everything is controlled by a third party except self-hosting. Mastodon allows that too. Closed networks don't. > Yes, you can switch to ProtonMail or something more secure if you want So you answered your own question. > but that won't solve the problems of the 99% of people that will use general providers and won't even know they can't switch. My point is that they are able to switch due to the openness of the platform. > Right now you could force Facebook to be interoperable and be open source and still 99% of the people would be on the original Facebook instance. Again, it's not a technical issue. Yes. It's not just a technical problem. But there is a technical side in it. Millions will immediately switch given a possibility. What happens next, who knows.