5 ms·

By "we" I meant online commenters debating the issue of tech company device lockdown. I didn't mean "the law". To the contrary, the submitted article author wa

by lapcat 2y ago

By "we" I meant online commenters debating the issue of tech company device lockdown. I didn't mean "the law". To the contrary, the submitted article author was proposing that we pass laws giving greater individual consumer rights over their devices. But the big tech companies have been viciously fighting against consumer rights, such as the right to repair.

eviks 2y ago
This is also strange as the commenters don't propose the measures that would correspond to viewing computers as more dangerous than guns (lockdown aren't that), but unlike with the law, I don't have a good simple illustration of that.
- lapcat 2y ago
  > lockdown aren't that Vendor lockdown is that. Defenders of vendor lockdown argue that computer users need to be protected paternalistically from themselves. For some reason we accept that for computers, but nobody would accept refrigerators and ovens that only allow you to eat healthy foods, nobody would accept homebuilders controlling the doors of your house and having to approve anyone who comes in, etc. Why do computers get this special treatment of vendor lockdown, but not any other product?
  - eviks 2y ago
    Wow, ok, if you think this is on par with the lockdowns that the commenters support for guns (which I've previously proxied as ~ existing restrictions), then I'm not sure what to say > Why do computers get this special treatment of vendor lockdown, but not any other product? Of course they don't, plenty of other products are treated much more seriously by "us" (supporting lockdowns that limit your own use without supervision), some of them you've already listed
    - lapcat 2y ago
      You appear to be conflating two different things: legal mandates and vendor lockdown. There are legal mandates regarding the sale and use of certain products. For example, you have to be a minimum age to buy cigarettes and alcohol, stores in some localities can only sell alcohol during certain hours, bars have to close at a certain time, you can't drive drunk, you must wear a seatbelt, you can't exceed the speed limit, etc. But there are no vendor lockdowns in this regard. A cigarette will allow anyone to smoke it, a container of alcohol will allow anyone to drink it, you car still works if you're drunk and don't put on your seatbelt, etc. If your car made you take a breathalyzer test whenever you wanted to drive, or it didn't allow you to exceed the speed limit, that would be vendor lockdown. I discussed the issue in another comment: "The equivalent would be if you could only use specific brands of replacement chains, blades, tires, or bullets that are approved by the manufacturer, for which the manufacturer gets a cut of the sales of those replacements." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42684134 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42684134
      - eviks 2y ago
        A cigarette will not allow anyone to smoke it if the vendor locked down sales and can't sell it to you, so you don't have it. This is a much more serious restriction of consumer freedoms than if anyone can buy and use, but can't smoke when drunk and in bed (fire safety) due to some other lockdown mechanism built into the cigarette itself. More people are affected, and the effect of full exclusion is stronger even though the "lock" mechanism is built differently So here is your mistake when you only accept something almost literally identical to computer lockdown (same with your fridge example), but brushing off more serious usage "lockdowns" that don't exist with computers > The equivalent would be if you could only use specific brands of replacement chains, blades, tires, or bullets that are approved by the manufacturer, for which the manufacturer gets a cut of the sales of those replacements." Yes, this exists and is common in complex mechanical things, e.g., you lose warranty if you use unapproved parts, or for some parts there is actually not even an alternative, so manufacture is the only one getting a cut So again, there is nothing unique or "most dangerous" about computers in either reality or people's prescriptions Although since your argument isn't about real restrictions, but about what commenters support, you'd need to ask them which of these existing restrictions they support vs computers

by lapcat 2y ago

eviks 2y ago

This is also strange as the commenters don't propose the measures that would correspond to viewing computers as more dangerous than guns (lockdown aren't that), but unlike with the law, I don't have a good simple illustration of that.

lapcat 2y ago
> lockdown aren't that Vendor lockdown is that. Defenders of vendor lockdown argue that computer users need to be protected paternalistically from themselves. For some reason we accept that for computers, but nobody would accept refrigerators and ovens that only allow you to eat healthy foods, nobody would accept homebuilders controlling the doors of your house and having to approve anyone who comes in, etc. Why do computers get this special treatment of vendor lockdown, but not any other product?
- eviks 2y ago
  Wow, ok, if you think this is on par with the lockdowns that the commenters support for guns (which I've previously proxied as ~ existing restrictions), then I'm not sure what to say > Why do computers get this special treatment of vendor lockdown, but not any other product? Of course they don't, plenty of other products are treated much more seriously by "us" (supporting lockdowns that limit your own use without supervision), some of them you've already listed
  - lapcat 2y ago
    You appear to be conflating two different things: legal mandates and vendor lockdown. There are legal mandates regarding the sale and use of certain products. For example, you have to be a minimum age to buy cigarettes and alcohol, stores in some localities can only sell alcohol during certain hours, bars have to close at a certain time, you can't drive drunk, you must wear a seatbelt, you can't exceed the speed limit, etc. But there are no vendor lockdowns in this regard. A cigarette will allow anyone to smoke it, a container of alcohol will allow anyone to drink it, you car still works if you're drunk and don't put on your seatbelt, etc. If your car made you take a breathalyzer test whenever you wanted to drive, or it didn't allow you to exceed the speed limit, that would be vendor lockdown. I discussed the issue in another comment: "The equivalent would be if you could only use specific brands of replacement chains, blades, tires, or bullets that are approved by the manufacturer, for which the manufacturer gets a cut of the sales of those replacements." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42684134 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42684134
    - eviks 2y ago
      A cigarette will not allow anyone to smoke it if the vendor locked down sales and can't sell it to you, so you don't have it. This is a much more serious restriction of consumer freedoms than if anyone can buy and use, but can't smoke when drunk and in bed (fire safety) due to some other lockdown mechanism built into the cigarette itself. More people are affected, and the effect of full exclusion is stronger even though the "lock" mechanism is built differently So here is your mistake when you only accept something almost literally identical to computer lockdown (same with your fridge example), but brushing off more serious usage "lockdowns" that don't exist with computers > The equivalent would be if you could only use specific brands of replacement chains, blades, tires, or bullets that are approved by the manufacturer, for which the manufacturer gets a cut of the sales of those replacements." Yes, this exists and is common in complex mechanical things, e.g., you lose warranty if you use unapproved parts, or for some parts there is actually not even an alternative, so manufacture is the only one getting a cut So again, there is nothing unique or "most dangerous" about computers in either reality or people's prescriptions Although since your argument isn't about real restrictions, but about what commenters support, you'd need to ask them which of these existing restrictions they support vs computers