3 ms·

Don't love it but (1) it's addressing a serious problem and I'm not sure what the alternative is and (2) if you all remember the starting place, it was staggeri

Don't love it but (1) it's addressing a serious problem and I'm not sure what the alternative is and (2) if you all remember the starting place, it was staggeringly, dramatically worse, practically a death sentence for F-Droid and seemingly testing the waters for if they could simply power through and do it despite objection. This is a major course correction that doesn't kill F-Droid. A one time 24 hour hoop to jump through and then never again is monumentally better than losing F-Droid forever.

userbinator 7mo ago
It's only a "serious problem" because they want you to think it is.
snackbroken 7mo ago
"Meet me in the middle" says the unjust man. You take a step forward. He takes a step back. "Meet me in the middle" says the unjust man.
supern0va 7mo ago
Is it a serious problem that you can run whatever software you want on your computer? Should we make it so that no one can do that without permission to protect them? I recommend Cory Doctorow's talk on why this is a serious problem for society: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Coming_War_on_General_Computation https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Coming_War_on_General_Com... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg
- renewiltord 7mo ago
  Yes, lots of vulnerable users get harmed by modern tech. E.g. people have lost their minds using AI, their livelihoods using smartphones, their life savings using the Internet. In general, I prefer a solution where any mental health issue (age-related infirmity, ADHD, etc.) result in protection from modern exploitative tech like this. Every application use for such people should be supervised by a government official trained to ensure you are not hurting yourself. This way people who want to use AI, smartphones, or the Internet can do so if they’re healthy and the mentally disabled can be protected. We know that this need exists because even on this “Hacker” News forum everyone gets very upset when a mentally disabled person gets injured after AI use.
- bitwize 7mo ago
  Not enough people give a shit about "general purpose computing" to matter. They use computers for a few things and as long as they can do those things they're fine with it. My wife loves all her Apple gear. It provides her with a wonderful, curated experience. Okay, maybe it hasn't been so good with recent iOS releases but it still beats Android or Microslop. Being able to hack, modify, or install arbitrary stuff on your device is something only a minority of a minority care about, statistical noise in the quarterly sales figures. When you compare that to the harm done by malware, illegal or indecent material, and the negative blowback to YOUR OS's reputation—or worse, the "felony contempt of business model" enabled by a general-purpose OS (piracy, ad blocking, etc.)—it's a no-brainer to implement restrictions.
- cyberax 7mo ago
  > Is it a serious problem that you can run whatever software you want on your computer? Unfortunately. I talked about this a bit on LWN: https://lwn.net/Articles/1063741/ https://lwn.net/Articles/1063741/ The problem is very, very real. I don't doubt that Google also has ulterior motives, but in this case they _are_ justified at least partially.
  - fsflover 7mo ago
    Why doesn't Debian have this serious problem?
    - cyberax 7mo ago
      Because Debian is not used by people in Asian countries in any appreciable numbers?
      - fsflover 7mo ago
        The xz attack proves that Debian is a big target though.
- glenstein 7mo ago
  Could you try to put more of a effort into keeping the specifics in view and not turning the whole conversation into a view from 10,000 ft filled with drive by generalities? You might as well be linking to a Wikipedia entry on 1984. We have moved away from an existential threat to F-Droid to a speed bump which lets it live. As is often the case, it's a both can be true situation in that I don't like the ratcheting up of restrictions, but think possible without contradiction to note how the change over time has impacted F-Droid compared to prior iterations of the proposed policy. It disappoints me that people on HN aren't sufficiently in control of their own attention to the point of being able to show up to that conversation, as the fate of F-Droid has been central to this saga if you've been following it over previous HN threads.
Zak 7mo ago
It's pretending to address a serious issue while giving Google significant power to limit distribution of apps Google doesn't like, which could sometimes include legal apps that certain governments don't like such as the recently famous ICEBlock. Google says they don't intend to do that, but even if I believe that's their current intention, they have a strong incentive to do otherwise in the future. Incentives predict outcomes more reliably than intentions. I say it's pretending because scammers are good at shifting tactics. If convincing users to install malware ceases to be the path of least resistance, they'll convince users to install legitimate remote access utilities, hand over credentials directly, or some other scheme I haven't thought up because I'm not a scammer.
- fc417fc802 7mo ago
  > they have a strong incentive to do otherwise in the future. The reality is far worse than that. Remember FBI vs Apple? That defense came down to Apple not having software in place that could facilitate the demand being made of them. If they'd had such a system they would presumably have been required to comply. The government can presumably get an illegal app forcibly removed from an app store but at present you could still install it yourself. With this system they could compel Google to block it entirely.
fluoridation 7mo ago
What's the serious problem?
pserwylo 7mo ago
F-Droid has spent many years trying to step out of the "only for technical/power users" into the "This is a tool that normal phone users should have and use". A one time 24hr wait moves back to the "F-Droid is only for technical users" big time. Bought a new phone? Moved from iPhone to Android? Want help from your friend/family member/librarian/other to setup your new phone for getting apps? Sorry, you need to come back a day later before you can actually use it. Guess what the normal/non-tech user does in this 24hr period? Go to Play Store, install a bunch of apps, forget that you had the desire to use an alternative. This indeed does make F-Droid no longer a tool for normal people, but only a tool for those willing to do a bunch of "Advanced" things on their phone. By definition, not regular users.
TiredOfLife 7mo ago
It addresses Youtube app showing an ad that installs malware from Google Play?
tvbusy 7mo ago
Phone sellers should enforce a mandatory 30 days no use after purchasing to ensure that people are not harmed by phone usage. Newspapers should only report news at a minimum 7 days after the fact to ensure accurate reporting. Toasters should lock everything in until it's completely room temperature to avoid accidental burns. These are serious problems.
- glenstein 7mo ago
  Straw man arguers should draft a comment and not send it for 24 hours to make sure they're not strawmanning.

userbinator 7mo ago

It's only a "serious problem" because they want you to think it is.

snackbroken 7mo ago

"Meet me in the middle" says the unjust man. You take a step forward. He takes a step back. "Meet me in the middle" says the unjust man.

supern0va 7mo ago

Is it a serious problem that you can run whatever software you want on your computer? Should we make it so that no one can do that without permission to protect them? I recommend Cory Doctorow's talk on why this is a serious problem for society: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Coming_War_on_General_Computation https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Coming_War_on_General_Com... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg

renewiltord 7mo ago
Yes, lots of vulnerable users get harmed by modern tech. E.g. people have lost their minds using AI, their livelihoods using smartphones, their life savings using the Internet. In general, I prefer a solution where any mental health issue (age-related infirmity, ADHD, etc.) result in protection from modern exploitative tech like this. Every application use for such people should be supervised by a government official trained to ensure you are not hurting yourself. This way people who want to use AI, smartphones, or the Internet can do so if they’re healthy and the mentally disabled can be protected. We know that this need exists because even on this “Hacker” News forum everyone gets very upset when a mentally disabled person gets injured after AI use.
bitwize 7mo ago
Not enough people give a shit about "general purpose computing" to matter. They use computers for a few things and as long as they can do those things they're fine with it. My wife loves all her Apple gear. It provides her with a wonderful, curated experience. Okay, maybe it hasn't been so good with recent iOS releases but it still beats Android or Microslop. Being able to hack, modify, or install arbitrary stuff on your device is something only a minority of a minority care about, statistical noise in the quarterly sales figures. When you compare that to the harm done by malware, illegal or indecent material, and the negative blowback to YOUR OS's reputation—or worse, the "felony contempt of business model" enabled by a general-purpose OS (piracy, ad blocking, etc.)—it's a no-brainer to implement restrictions.
cyberax 7mo ago
> Is it a serious problem that you can run whatever software you want on your computer? Unfortunately. I talked about this a bit on LWN: https://lwn.net/Articles/1063741/ https://lwn.net/Articles/1063741/ The problem is very, very real. I don't doubt that Google also has ulterior motives, but in this case they _are_ justified at least partially.
- fsflover 7mo ago
  Why doesn't Debian have this serious problem?
  - cyberax 7mo ago
    Because Debian is not used by people in Asian countries in any appreciable numbers?
    - fsflover 7mo ago
      The xz attack proves that Debian is a big target though.
glenstein 7mo ago
Could you try to put more of a effort into keeping the specifics in view and not turning the whole conversation into a view from 10,000 ft filled with drive by generalities? You might as well be linking to a Wikipedia entry on 1984. We have moved away from an existential threat to F-Droid to a speed bump which lets it live. As is often the case, it's a both can be true situation in that I don't like the ratcheting up of restrictions, but think possible without contradiction to note how the change over time has impacted F-Droid compared to prior iterations of the proposed policy. It disappoints me that people on HN aren't sufficiently in control of their own attention to the point of being able to show up to that conversation, as the fate of F-Droid has been central to this saga if you've been following it over previous HN threads.

Zak 7mo ago

It's pretending to address a serious issue while giving Google significant power to limit distribution of apps Google doesn't like, which could sometimes include legal apps that certain governments don't like such as the recently famous ICEBlock. Google says they don't intend to do that, but even if I believe that's their current intention, they have a strong incentive to do otherwise in the future. Incentives predict outcomes more reliably than intentions. I say it's pretending because scammers are good at shifting tactics. If convincing users to install malware ceases to be the path of least resistance, they'll convince users to install legitimate remote access utilities, hand over credentials directly, or some other scheme I haven't thought up because I'm not a scammer.

fc417fc802 7mo ago
> they have a strong incentive to do otherwise in the future. The reality is far worse than that. Remember FBI vs Apple? That defense came down to Apple not having software in place that could facilitate the demand being made of them. If they'd had such a system they would presumably have been required to comply. The government can presumably get an illegal app forcibly removed from an app store but at present you could still install it yourself. With this system they could compel Google to block it entirely.

fluoridation 7mo ago

What's the serious problem?

pserwylo 7mo ago

F-Droid has spent many years trying to step out of the "only for technical/power users" into the "This is a tool that normal phone users should have and use". A one time 24hr wait moves back to the "F-Droid is only for technical users" big time. Bought a new phone? Moved from iPhone to Android? Want help from your friend/family member/librarian/other to setup your new phone for getting apps? Sorry, you need to come back a day later before you can actually use it. Guess what the normal/non-tech user does in this 24hr period? Go to Play Store, install a bunch of apps, forget that you had the desire to use an alternative. This indeed does make F-Droid no longer a tool for normal people, but only a tool for those willing to do a bunch of "Advanced" things on their phone. By definition, not regular users.

TiredOfLife 7mo ago

It addresses Youtube app showing an ad that installs malware from Google Play?

tvbusy 7mo ago

Phone sellers should enforce a mandatory 30 days no use after purchasing to ensure that people are not harmed by phone usage. Newspapers should only report news at a minimum 7 days after the fact to ensure accurate reporting. Toasters should lock everything in until it's completely room temperature to avoid accidental burns. These are serious problems.

glenstein 7mo ago
Straw man arguers should draft a comment and not send it for 24 hours to make sure they're not strawmanning.