4 ms·

>Somehow we managed to survive without the majority of society being scammed out of their life savings before Apple came in with the iPhone and locked down iOS

by scoofy 8mo ago

>Somehow we managed to survive without the majority of society being scammed out of their life savings before Apple came in with the iPhone and locked down iOS What on earth are you talking about? People have been getting scammed since the days of AOL! What an insane perspective. It's not about total money lost from scams. It's about the amount of impact it has on the individuals who get scammed. What's the problem with Russian roulette after all? Most people playing Russian Roulette are absolutely fine! The point is that the damage done to the few people who get scammed is so high, we ought to care about their lives too. At the end of the day, it might end up being us... it probably won't, but it might. Yes, monopolistic network effects are a problem, but that can be handled with regulation.

TeMPOraL 8mo ago
We don't save few people suffering high damage from losing a round of Russian Roulette by restricting ability to roll D6, because of then harm a bad roll can do when in form of a barrel of a loaded revolver. Also "only criminals need random number generators". Yes that's how we're treating end user computing.
- scoofy 8mo ago
  It is a question of who is "We" because all this seems to imply that the market owes "us" this product. I would lose my mind and switch to Linux for good if Apple every tried to close their laptops. Why? Because unlike my mom, I'm sitting here writing programs for myself. On my phone however, I don't want to have to do a bunch of research whenever I need to install something like a parking app. I don't want to have to install a random parking app, but when you need an app to park in the MUELLER - MCBEE garage in Austin, and when I'm visiting and am meeting people for tacos, life is going to force me to install that app. When that happens, I'm happy to be in the walled garden. In fact, I want a walled garden. I'm happy to have two computers, one open and one closed. They're two different products. For folks who want an open phone, yea, it's basically GrapheneOS or nothing, because when the point of the phone is a completely different use case (random app installs) then the point becomes the ecosystem, and you need to always be able to trust the ecosystem. When you are trying to tinker with your phone, it becomes a completely different product. The market doesn't owe you that product.
  - TeMPOraL 7mo ago
    Which is why, note, I have not phrased my comment in terms of markets. The market does not owe me shit. It doesn't owe anything to anybody. It does whatever it does, and if it doesn't meet our ethical and utilitarian standards, we constrain it with regulations until it does. WRT your example, that you have to install random parking apps is a problem - it's only the case because the market framework enables and encourages people to make money by hurting and abusing others. Demanding installation of random apps is a small act of malice, but act of malice nonetheless, because it's done not to solve the parking problem, but to trap people in a situation ("captive audience") and monetize them on the side. Freedom of end-user computing helps defeat that, as it makes it easier to both set up and integrate with larger-scale, common solutions to problem, and protect yourself from attempts at being kept captive and exploited digitally.

by scoofy 8mo ago

TeMPOraL 8mo ago

We don't save few people suffering high damage from losing a round of Russian Roulette by restricting ability to roll D6, because of then harm a bad roll can do when in form of a barrel of a loaded revolver. Also "only criminals need random number generators". Yes that's how we're treating end user computing.

scoofy 8mo ago
It is a question of who is "We" because all this seems to imply that the market owes "us" this product. I would lose my mind and switch to Linux for good if Apple every tried to close their laptops. Why? Because unlike my mom, I'm sitting here writing programs for myself. On my phone however, I don't want to have to do a bunch of research whenever I need to install something like a parking app. I don't want to have to install a random parking app, but when you need an app to park in the MUELLER - MCBEE garage in Austin, and when I'm visiting and am meeting people for tacos, life is going to force me to install that app. When that happens, I'm happy to be in the walled garden. In fact, I want a walled garden. I'm happy to have two computers, one open and one closed. They're two different products. For folks who want an open phone, yea, it's basically GrapheneOS or nothing, because when the point of the phone is a completely different use case (random app installs) then the point becomes the ecosystem, and you need to always be able to trust the ecosystem. When you are trying to tinker with your phone, it becomes a completely different product. The market doesn't owe you that product.
- TeMPOraL 7mo ago
  Which is why, note, I have not phrased my comment in terms of markets. The market does not owe me shit. It doesn't owe anything to anybody. It does whatever it does, and if it doesn't meet our ethical and utilitarian standards, we constrain it with regulations until it does. WRT your example, that you have to install random parking apps is a problem - it's only the case because the market framework enables and encourages people to make money by hurting and abusing others. Demanding installation of random apps is a small act of malice, but act of malice nonetheless, because it's done not to solve the parking problem, but to trap people in a situation ("captive audience") and monetize them on the side. Freedom of end-user computing helps defeat that, as it makes it easier to both set up and integrate with larger-scale, common solutions to problem, and protect yourself from attempts at being kept captive and exploited digitally.