3 ms·

About the same age here. One thing that adds to this feeling for me, is that any device I own that has an OS, unless that OS is Linux, feels distinctly hostile

About the same age here. One thing that adds to this feeling for me, is that any device I own that has an OS, unless that OS is Linux, feels distinctly hostile. I can't own a handheld computer that's not trying to enmesh me in an "ecosystem" of some sort, curate my options without my consent, do god-knows-what in the background, brick itself on a timer, and the list goes on. It's even worse with laptops and desktops, unless I'm willing to devote big chunks of my dwindling free time to making a hobbyist OS (which, to be fair, is a breath of fresh air when it works) behave. When even the terminals to our increasingly-hostile internet are themselves hostile, it makes me dream of just walking away from it all that much more.

skohan 5y ago
Yeah over the past few years this has been an issue I have found myself becoming increasingly passionate about. It's a particular problem of internet connected devices - in the past it was not really possible to own something which is acting on behalf of another party while it's in your possession, but that's exactly what corporate-owned operating systems do. And we haven't taken the time to develop legal frameworks around how that should work.
GoblinSlayer 5y ago
Android isn't trying to enmesh you in an "ecosystem" of some sort?
d0gsg0w00f 5y ago
I think the core of the problem here is the free ad-supported model that's so pervasive in the industry. Data mining in order to optimize targeted ads is the business driver for this bad behavior and society has struggled to grasp it's implications. The problem is that once something is free there's no going back. You'll never be able to compete with free. Free is the new antitrust. The only players that will be able to survive and thrive in this model are the ones with the most data and the most socially exploitative techniques. Lots of us are happy to pay for nice things like operating systems that don't use this model but there aren't enough of us to adequately fund such projects. We're just not a big enough market share.
- soylentcola 5y ago
  I'm thinking about some times when I chose "paid" over "free" and a big part of it was that the paid option was 1) considerably better and 2) unavailable for free due to physical limitations. The first example I thought of was when I was younger and wanted internet access. I didn't pay for dialup as long as I could figure out a free option. Our library had some free system you could dial into and I figured out a way to make reasonable use of that. Then when I moved, I used some of those Juno and Netzero type services for a while. But once I had the option to pay for cable internet, I just went straight for it. The experience was an order of magnitude better, and there was simply no way to hustle a roughly equivalent free option out there. But looking back, I don't know if I would've considered a free, ad-based cable provider if it existed back when I was a broke young dude pinching pennies wherever I could. Then again, nowadays, I would pay a bit extra to ensure my cable internet provider did not read, prioritize, or otherwise mess with my data if that was an option. But I doubt many others would choose to do that if it was extra charge for nebulous benefits.
- m_fayer 5y ago
  I would say that there's two models driving us to hell. In addition to the ad-supported model, there's also the "everything is a service" model. The AAS model is increasingly the only alternative to the ad-supported model that's available to those of us willing to pay for nice things. Teslas and iPhones are certainly not free, yet they're just as much inscrutable black-boxes as low-end smartphones and commodity "smart" TVs. The only difference is that they spend less time misbehaving because of careless updates, since this model motivates the manufacturers to invest more in QA. They're less openly hostile-seeming because they view the user like a high-end hotel views a guest - to be pampered and indulged. But the "user" is still a guest with limited-time and carefully-controlled access to the facilities, not an owner.

skohan 5y ago

Yeah over the past few years this has been an issue I have found myself becoming increasingly passionate about. It's a particular problem of internet connected devices - in the past it was not really possible to own something which is acting on behalf of another party while it's in your possession, but that's exactly what corporate-owned operating systems do. And we haven't taken the time to develop legal frameworks around how that should work.

GoblinSlayer 5y ago

Android isn't trying to enmesh you in an "ecosystem" of some sort?

d0gsg0w00f 5y ago

I think the core of the problem here is the free ad-supported model that's so pervasive in the industry. Data mining in order to optimize targeted ads is the business driver for this bad behavior and society has struggled to grasp it's implications. The problem is that once something is free there's no going back. You'll never be able to compete with free. Free is the new antitrust. The only players that will be able to survive and thrive in this model are the ones with the most data and the most socially exploitative techniques. Lots of us are happy to pay for nice things like operating systems that don't use this model but there aren't enough of us to adequately fund such projects. We're just not a big enough market share.

soylentcola 5y ago
I'm thinking about some times when I chose "paid" over "free" and a big part of it was that the paid option was 1) considerably better and 2) unavailable for free due to physical limitations. The first example I thought of was when I was younger and wanted internet access. I didn't pay for dialup as long as I could figure out a free option. Our library had some free system you could dial into and I figured out a way to make reasonable use of that. Then when I moved, I used some of those Juno and Netzero type services for a while. But once I had the option to pay for cable internet, I just went straight for it. The experience was an order of magnitude better, and there was simply no way to hustle a roughly equivalent free option out there. But looking back, I don't know if I would've considered a free, ad-based cable provider if it existed back when I was a broke young dude pinching pennies wherever I could. Then again, nowadays, I would pay a bit extra to ensure my cable internet provider did not read, prioritize, or otherwise mess with my data if that was an option. But I doubt many others would choose to do that if it was extra charge for nebulous benefits.
m_fayer 5y ago
I would say that there's two models driving us to hell. In addition to the ad-supported model, there's also the "everything is a service" model. The AAS model is increasingly the only alternative to the ad-supported model that's available to those of us willing to pay for nice things. Teslas and iPhones are certainly not free, yet they're just as much inscrutable black-boxes as low-end smartphones and commodity "smart" TVs. The only difference is that they spend less time misbehaving because of careless updates, since this model motivates the manufacturers to invest more in QA. They're less openly hostile-seeming because they view the user like a high-end hotel views a guest - to be pampered and indulged. But the "user" is still a guest with limited-time and carefully-controlled access to the facilities, not an owner.