7 ms·

I'm assuming the best intentions from you but I'd like to point out two things: 1. When discussing human rights (which apply to technological freedoms) reducin

• _Algernon_ 3y ago
  Is the right of a handful of people to run a web server on their phone more important than the right of millions of "unsophisticated" users to not be scammed / abused by malware? Since it's inception smart phones have been a consumer platform, used for consuming content. The platform for tinkerers already exists. It's called a PC with Linux installed. Every platform does not need to cater to your needs.
  • froggit 3y ago
    PC is overkill for this case. A raspberry pi would get the job done while saving energy and equipment costs.
    • _Algernon_ 3y ago
      A raspberry pi certainly fits the definition of a "Personal Computer".
      • hunter2_ 3y ago
        The whole "Mac versus PC" thing somewhat solidified the notion that PC refers to x86. Raspberry Pi uses ARM.
        • cdogl 3y ago
          I have an X86 MacBook Pro.
          • hunter2_ 3y ago
            "PC refers to a non-Apple x86 machine" then :)
        • seabass-labrax 3y ago
          I like to think of a 'PC' being any machine that is derived from the IBM 5150, which was the original 'Personal Computer' (although far from the first microcomputer). However, with UEFI support on many ARM SoCs, maybe the two lineages are now marrying into each other!
        • gsich 3y ago
          Mac is a PC.
          • worthless-trash 3y ago
            Exactly, if its not personal, what is it ?
  • Moldoteck 3y ago
    right of millions of "unsophisticated" users to not be scammed / abused by malware - but who even said this will lead to millions being scammed? Does (just) the ability to create a server on pc/mac imply are less secure compared to phones?(the question is just for this ability, not other protection mechanisms). Also, why just not treat it like option to sideload apps in android? Imo that option is orders of magnitude 'more dangerous' compared to creating a server but still that option can be used without the root and without breaking the warranty.
  • soulofmischief 3y ago
    > Is the right of a handful of people to run a web server on their phone more important than the right of millions of "unsophisticated" users to not be scammed / abused by malware? Are you familiar with the false dilemma? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma > The platform for tinkerers already exists. It's called a PC with Linux installed I would love for you to make the case that a modern touch screen phone is not a Personal Computer. And you fail to address the very real scenario in which companies are conspiring to provide fully locked-down hardware and software ecosystems.
    • _Algernon_ 3y ago
      >I would love for you to make the case that a modern touch screen phone is not a Personal Computer. I'm always up for a challenge, so here you go. I'd argue that a PC is a general purpose personal computer. I wouldn't count a game console such as Xbox, PS or Switch as a PC because it is vendor controlled and locked down. I'd also not consider a car with an entertainment system a general purpose computing device. Similarly phones are bought with the knowledge that they are more similar to game consoles than general purpose computers. They are bought with the knowledge that they are locked down by the vendor and that your use of the device is going to be limited. The right to install custom software that does whatever you want has never been part of the contract. I do support the people's right to attempt to hack these devices to do whatever they want, but I do think expecting vendor support for their wacky antics is a step too far.
      • soulofmischief 3y ago
        > I wouldn't count a game console such as Xbox, PS or Switch as a PC because it is vendor controlled and locked down The Xbox was built primarily from standard components used in personal computers. The PlayStation 2 and 3 ran Linux as alternative operating systems, officially supported by Sony. The Nintendo Wii series is heralded as some of the most hackable and therefore versatile consoles in history, not for Nintendo's lack of trying. > Similarly phones are bought with the knowledge that they are more similar to game consoles than general purpose computers My phone in my pocket has more capability than my old laptops. Touchscreen interaction and the ability to make calls over a cell network do not suddenly make this thing not a personal computer. The hardware is completely capable of supporting this. > They are bought with the knowledge that they are locked down by the vendor and that your use of the device is going to be limited. This is just circular reasoning. The entire point is that this "knowledge" is simply consumer conditioning, and people are being taken advantage of by being fed this bullshit narrative. > The right to install custom software that does whatever you want has never been part of the contract. My friend, there is no contract. That is the point. I buy the hardware, and then I have the right to do whatever the fuck I want with it. Full stop. Anything less restricts my right to modify my personal items as I see fit. > I do think expecting vendor support for their wacky antics is a step too far. What? My phone runs a heavily-modified Linux and can do literally anything I need regarding personal computing, including hook up to external monitors and make use of peripheral devices like a mouse and keyboard. It is objectively a full-blown computer, regardless of if you can't understand that. The premise of this thread is simply that, despite all of this, ports are arbitrarily locked down. This requires extra vendor intervention to implement, so your argument makes no sense. There is nothing wacky about using my personal computing device for.... personal computing. It's either disingenuous or ignorant to suggest this is not something which should be considered.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• kanbara 3y ago
  i’ve never heard someone say that it’s a human right to run a webserver. i understand that you want to own the stack on your tech, and i would argue that if custom OSes were allowed, that fulfils that need. it’s not apple or google’s responsibility to let you do anything with their OS, in the same vein that you often are limited by stock router firmware or what’s on your ps5. as phones are hyper-personal it makes sense people want more control, but most average users do not. and as someone who works closely with smartphone tech, i want it to just work and i don’t want to worry about whatever nonsense is enabled by disabling security or os-level by guarantees. just get a fairphone or whatever. it’s not a human right to force tech companies to embrace your vision of computing
  • brigandish 3y ago
    > i’ve never heard someone say that it’s a human right to run a webserver. Now that you have, will you say that it has more merit if discussed in future?
• ilyt 3y ago
  But the option is there, rooting. As long as that is reasonably available I don't really see problem. Of course the seven hells of apple ecosystem is another matter You can argue all you want about what the normal joe shmoe should be able to do but most joes shmoes will use that to hurt themselves more than help. Limitiations are essentially OSHA of computing, by making it hard to do the wrong stuff it makes most people least likely to hurt themselves.
  • froggit 3y ago
    Locked bootloaders.
  • bakugo 3y ago
    > But the option is there, rooting. As long as that is reasonably available I don't really see problem. Well, it's not reasonably available. The number of android phone manufacturers that still allow bootloaders to be unlocked without significant friction is pretty small, and hardware attestation is slowly killing the whole rooting/custom rom scene since phones with unlocked bootloaders can't run many apps.
  • yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    > But the option is there, rooting. As long as that is reasonably available I don't really see problem. The option is there on some phones, and that with caveats; lots of phones don't let you root them, and even if you can they'll artificially break things (like sony degrading the camera, or any app that refuses to run if it realizes it's on a rooted phone)
• Angostura 3y ago
  I'm intrigued. Should all smart refrigerators be able to run web servers? TVs? Would you want them to?
  • l33t7332273 3y ago
    That would be one decent instance of a self cooled server.
  • soulofmischief 3y ago
    This is a complete straw-man argument and deserves no further consideration. Refrigerators are not personal computers and in this case, the less digital tech a refrigerator contains, the better.
    • Angostura 3y ago
      Exactly. And a phone is not a personal computer either.
      • cxr 3y ago
        Flatly stating, presumably with a straight face, that "a phone is not a personal computer" is a really wild take.
      • soulofmischief 3y ago
        How did you make this leap? Are you capable of understanding nuance?
        • Angostura 3y ago
          I made this leap because the foundation of your claim that phones should run webservers appears to be Personal computers should be able to run a web server > Phones are personal computers > Phones should be able to run webservers.
          • soulofmischief 3y ago
• tqi 3y ago
  It might feel good and noble to chide people about this stuff, but this type of hyperbolic, exaggerated grandstanding is THE reason why our society is so polarized. It is absolutely NOT slippery slope to human rights violations to talk about edge cases or to make tradeoffs. Escalating everything to such high stakes makes discussion and compromise impossible.
  • COGlory 3y ago
    >feel good and noble to chide people about this stuff, but this type of hyperbolic, exaggerated grandstanding is THE reason why our society is so polarized. Is this line supposed to be ironic or something?
    • hunter2_ 3y ago
      It's quite reminiscent of the tolerance paradox, at least.
  • soulofmischief 3y ago
    > It might feel good and noble to chide people about this stuff, but this type of hyperbolic, exaggerated grandstanding is THE reason why our society is so polarized. I'm sorry, but what are you doing right now if not this?
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
• froggit 3y ago
  > 2. It's an incredibly slippery slope to use "crapware" as a justification for reducing the freedoms of the individual. Criminals will find a way, do not create a hostile user experience. It's a legit security issue. Not protecting people from these things is far more user hostile.
  • brigandish 3y ago
    Preventing some users who have the know-how from running a web server is not mutually exclusive with protecting people who don't wish to or don't know how.
  • Moldoteck 3y ago
    But this issue is minuscule compared to allowing running unverified apps... a thing that's allowed in most android phones a button away without the need to break warranty. What's more funny, looks like ios soon will allow this too. So phones are already offering the option to run unverified code, user should just allow it and accept the risks prompt. Why not treat the server thing (which imo is much less dangerous) just the same way?
• cvoss 3y ago
  > When discussing human rights I've never heard an argument before that the ability to host a personal website on a cellphone is a human right. But, by using this phrase, you seem to be assuming your readers already agree with you that human rights is what we are discussing. As a rhetorical device, that may be effective at getting someone to back down for fear of being labeled as anti-human-rights, but it is not effective at persuading someone of your implied thesis. I'd very much like to hear such an argument connecting cellphone websites to human rights.
  • brigandish 3y ago
    Most simply, you could start from the view that is the basis of English common law - that which is not explicitly forbidden is allowed. Your rights are not given, they exist prior to law, it is only for law to help define them for the purpose of upholding them. Hence, freedom is the default position, the default human right. What needs to be justified is the restriction, not the freedom. Without good justification the restriction should be removed. An example of unjustifiable restriction is "criminals may use it", as: a) your freedom should not be impinged on by the actions of others, especially malicious ones, and b) you are presumed innocent (the second, perhaps only in order of mention here, great principle of English law, if not culture. One that is sadly being undermined).
  • soulofmischief 3y ago
    > I'd very much like to hear such an argument connecting cellphone websites to human rights. The argument is that individuals must have the right to modify their devices as they see fit, barring some reasonable FTC radio restrictions which are necessary to enable fair use. You can argue that nothing should compel a company, in a free market, to provide such a device. But the nature of human rights is that they must be defended vigilantly, or the entire industry and government will slowly move to exploit people. If you do not guarantee freedom of speech, companies will restrict it. If you do not guarantee freedom to repair or modify a device, companies will restrict it. At some point, these practices become inescapable for the end user and they effectively lose these freedoms while entirely skipping due process and the court of law.
    • 3y ago
• ineedasername 3y ago
  Everything that might be useful to a marginalized population should not automatically be used to rhetorically beat someone over the head in this sort of discussion. Humans rights pov to this were not remotely part of the discussion. If you have one you think is relevant to the discussion then introduce it. The way you have tried to do so here is in the tone of “I know you think you’re trying to help but clearly your attitude is part of the problem.” This might be acceptable if phone-hosted websites were already a well-known humanitarian & human rights issue and therefore marginalization a potential problem. As it stand though it just seems like you’re twisting the meaning of “edge case” into something that it is not.
  • soulofmischief 3y ago
    The issue is that we must enforce these rights within the market, or we circumvent law. "Freedom of speech" doesn't matter if the user can only choose from market participants which restrict speech. There is absolutely no guarantee that "the free market will sort things out" as so many believe. The only guarantee must come from corporate restrictions which enable individual freedoms. You could argue John Deere shouldn't be required to sell you a tractor which you can repair at home. But if you don't require that, they won't, and you've chosen to prioritize corporate needs over individual needs.
• zerbinxx 3y ago
  Almost comically hyperbolic. Today, you do have a right to host anything (within reason) you want on anything you own. You can’t be arrested for jailbreaking your phone, and you have every right to buy alternative devices if those don’t suit you. Calling this a human rights issue is like calling your ability to order a sandwich for lunch a human rights issue
  • soulofmischief 3y ago
    > Today Exactly. If we established all law based only on what we currently observe, without considering future implications, then we would fundamentally only be a reactive legislative system and not proactive. > Calling this a human rights issue is like calling your ability to order a sandwich for lunch a human rights issue No, that is a gross misrepresentation. The simple fact is that if you don't require the right for a user to modify their general computing hardware, that right will never be awarded systematically, and will in fact be repressed. It's the definition of a slippery slope, because anything can be justified from that point.
• janalsncm 3y ago
  If it is a human right to be able to run a web server off of a phone, does this mean that every human has a right to own a phone?
  • brigandish 3y ago
    Why would one necessitate the other?
  • Moldoteck 3y ago
    What is not forbidden is allowed, you are born with your rights, law just limits them for society to function. Afaik law doesn't forbid to run a webserver on your phone so technically you can say it's a human right
    • soulofmischief 3y ago
      This is is closely related to the Right To Repair movement, which is one of the most important human rights campaigns of our lifetimes.
• Spooky23 3y ago
  I think there’s a balance here where you have different harms. Your concern is about an intellectual ideal of full freedom to utilize a device as you see fit. That is an ideal that I am philosophically attracted to. But… you have to balance harms when dealing with the public. Security risk management for mobile is difficult and even professional practitioners fail badly at it. A billion little servers with a trillion little bugs are a physical safety risk for thousands of people that they cannot effectively manage. We live in an era where publishing is easier than it has been since society consisted of a bunch of cavemen in a few small bands. This idea is technically interesting but a bad one.
  • soulofmischief 3y ago
    Well I agree with, for example, band restrictions set by the FTC which allow fair use. Individual freedoms are only enabled by restrictions against parties who would otherwise conspire to ignore them.
• chillbill 3y ago
  [flagged]
• robertlagrant 3y ago
  > When discussing human rights (which apply to technological freedoms) reducing a need to "an edge case" is the basis of marginalization, defined as "treatment of a person, group, or concept as insignificant or peripheral". This is a category error. The use is marginal, not the people. You can't just uprate the severity of something because it suits your wants.