4 ms·

> "giving the option" is as good as forcing the users From what perspective? > third party devs ... will, given the option, force users to install unvetted ap

> "giving the option" is as good as forcing the users From what perspective? > third party devs ... will, given the option, force users to install unvetted apps It is up to the users to allow e.g. Facebook application to install additional applications. No one, and especially no app, should be able to force them to do so on an open OS. If you refer to predatory practices where an application would disable some of its functionality until an additional "unvetted" application is installed, then this is definitely an issue. But it should be addressed by targeted measures against the offending applications and by educating the users. Not by taking away everyone's freedom. In my opinion, the freedom of choice regarding which application runs on one's own hardware should remain with the owner to the largest extent that is practically possible.

coldtea 4y ago
>If you refer to predatory practices where an application would disable some of its functionality until an additional "unvetted" application is installed, then this is definitely an issue. Worse, there wont even be a vetted application. It will only be an unvetted application you'll be asked to sideload to get the functionality at all. And soon: alternative app stores, with their own rules and no central control. From Adobe, Google, and so on. >But it should be addressed by targeted measures against the offending applications and by educating the users Has that "educating" and "targeted measures" ever worked?
- pbasista 4y ago
  > there wont even be a vetted application I do not understand your reasoning. Any app store or in general any source from where an application could be installed implicitly provides a trust model. Whether it is Google's Play Store, a GitHub repository or e.g. John Doe's personal website. The users then have the freedom to choose whom they would like to trust. > Has that "educating" and "targeted measures" ever worked? Yes. Users are cautious before running anything as root. They check a browser addon before installing it. They do not open media from unsolicited e-mails. And so on. It is, however, all besides the point. Even if there currently were no effective targeted measures that could be used, it still would not mean that we should resort to undermining everyone's freedom, in my opinion. Not in this particular case. There are legitimate cases where everyone's freedom is restricted in order to make the society a better place. For instance, we as a society have chosen to not tolerate stealing and we put the individuals who do so behind bars. This is broadly accepted because it brings benefits to everyone. We do not need to worry about being stolen from that much. However, there is no general benefit to the society that I am able to see which would materialize as a result of limiting everyone's freedom to use their own devices. I can only see a lot of negatives.

coldtea 4y ago

>If you refer to predatory practices where an application would disable some of its functionality until an additional "unvetted" application is installed, then this is definitely an issue. Worse, there wont even be a vetted application. It will only be an unvetted application you'll be asked to sideload to get the functionality at all. And soon: alternative app stores, with their own rules and no central control. From Adobe, Google, and so on. >But it should be addressed by targeted measures against the offending applications and by educating the users Has that "educating" and "targeted measures" ever worked?

pbasista 4y ago
> there wont even be a vetted application I do not understand your reasoning. Any app store or in general any source from where an application could be installed implicitly provides a trust model. Whether it is Google's Play Store, a GitHub repository or e.g. John Doe's personal website. The users then have the freedom to choose whom they would like to trust. > Has that "educating" and "targeted measures" ever worked? Yes. Users are cautious before running anything as root. They check a browser addon before installing it. They do not open media from unsolicited e-mails. And so on. It is, however, all besides the point. Even if there currently were no effective targeted measures that could be used, it still would not mean that we should resort to undermining everyone's freedom, in my opinion. Not in this particular case. There are legitimate cases where everyone's freedom is restricted in order to make the society a better place. For instance, we as a society have chosen to not tolerate stealing and we put the individuals who do so behind bars. This is broadly accepted because it brings benefits to everyone. We do not need to worry about being stolen from that much. However, there is no general benefit to the society that I am able to see which would materialize as a result of limiting everyone's freedom to use their own devices. I can only see a lot of negatives.