7 ms·

The superhuman efforts that folks on HN make to find technical workarounds and solutions is wonderful to see, but we must realize that this is not a technical p

• socalgal2 5mo ago
  > In my experience, once the issue is framed as 'Google will decide what you can do with your phone' every single person is immediately outraged. Apple already does this and practically no one is outraged
  • nullc 5mo ago
    Apple doesn't own re-captcha. Apple's walled garden is still a tragedy but its a tragedy of willing participants.
  • sevenzero 5mo ago
    Because Apple always did this, everybody knew this and people buy Apple exactly because of this. Google now pulls the rug on Android which is a whole different story because it used to be open. The whole idea of Android was to be open.
    • comandillos 5mo ago
      The biggest mistake is that people trusted a company that, in reality, isn't that different from Apple. Just because everyone claimed Android as the true open source alternative to iOS, when only AOSP was that.
      • sevenzero 5mo ago
        Yea agree. I reeeeally dont get why Google or Apple have good reputation at all.
        • comandillos 5mo ago
          They built products people like, and specially Apple has good reputation for building reliable, long-lasting and easy to use stuff for most people, leading to a heavy user adoption. But heavy user adoption without the proper regulation and company ethics leads to, well, monopolistic practices.
        • pbhjpbhj 5mo ago
          Google (before the sell-off) promoted a morality in 'don't be evil' that was a stark contrast to other tech firms. The adverts they carried were minimal. Their "free" stuff was top of the line, better than people were getting from paid services. Apple (under Jobs) sold themselves as counter-culture, they used popstars (unironically), and design, to sell the idea that if you were your own person, or followed fashion, then you bought Apple. I think the goodwill from those days still provides the foundations of their cultural position now. Although they chip away at those foundations. OpenAI looked like it could follow Google's early model, until it didn't.
          • 5mo ago
  • peterm4 5mo ago
    > It doesn't take much to convince them that Google et al don't have their best interests in mind. They already know it and have experienced it. I think with Apple in particular, this is the issue. Apple have largely demonstrated that they _do_ often have the users best interests in mind (or at least at some point have had) on the basis that the users are Apple’s primary customers. Yes, Apple lock down iOS functionality but this has often been to deliver innovative features. Users don’t mind that they’re in a walled garden because, they like the walled garden. This is where Google is a different case. Google’s interests are aligned with mass data collection rather than products people love. Most Google users have experienced how this impacts them negatively at some point, usually with the degradation of their products, and constant advert spam. Google is an example of a company that the mass majority assumes to be in the wrong. Apple often isn’t.
    • quietbritishjim 5mo ago
      Most people just do not think about this as much as we do. We understand that, as the saying goes, if you're not paying for something then you are the product. But less technical people don't consider that, and don't have hoards of technical friends to convince them otherwise. They just think: they using the product, so they're the user, right? We know that's true but it's not the same thing as customer. Most people don't have that distinction in their head. It's even partially true that Google does want to do things that attracts and retains users, because that's a prerequisite for selling them to advertisers. In my experience, that's an upper bound on the amount of thought most non-technical people would give it.
      • pbhjpbhj 5mo ago
        >if you're not paying for something then you are the product. It seems over the last decade that if you _are_ paying, you are still the product, you're just making more money for the people selling you.
  • khriss 5mo ago
    Yes, but most people don't realize it, simply because they have been conditioned from the beginning that the only way to run anything on an iOS device is via the app store. With Apple customers, a better argument to make is to say that Apple applies a 30% 'tax' on all activity on their phones. That they are being forced to pay more compared to non Apple users in spite of having bought their device fair and square.
    • lotsofpulp 5mo ago
      I have been using Apple devices for almost 20 years, and I have never been forced to pay a 30% tax on all activity on my phone. I can avoid it by buying directly from the seller's website, and also I just avoid buying software subscriptions in general, but especially from the App Store. 99% of the payment activity I do on my phone (buying retail goods, travel arrangements, paying invoices) has no additional cost.
      • khriss 5mo ago
        No? Apple charges a fee on every app sale. Where do you think the app makers pay that walled garden tax?
        • lotsofpulp 5mo ago
          Buying apps is hardly "all activity on a phone". It's completely inconsequential to my spend since summer of 2008, when I began using Apple products. Maybe a couple hundred dollars in total app store purchases? It would make no sense for me to base a decision about devices I use day and night over that small amount of money (30% of a couple hundred dollars).
          • khriss 5mo ago
            > It would make no sense for me to base a decision about devices I use day and night over that small amount of money (30% of a couple hundred dollars). Fair enough. It might not be consequential for you, the fact remains Apple took 30% of every dollar you spent on the app store. This, after you paid a premium for Apple hardware. I'm happy the walled garden with a toll is worth it for you. All I'm saying is, others might not agree with that if they knew. Just look at the push back again tariffs as an example.
  • roer 5mo ago
    Frame it as "America will decide what you can do with your phone" and people in Europe will listen.
    • userbinator 5mo ago
      Frame it as "the government will decide what you can do with your phone" and people in America will listen.
      • parineum 5mo ago
        Frame it as "won't somebody think of the children" and everyone will listen.
        • cybercatgurrl 5mo ago
          that is how you wind up with a surveillance state. should probably avoid using that argument
  • techteach00 5mo ago
    I agree with this. The general population is hopeless, they will hand literally anything away for the least amount of friction. They are also profoundly ignorant. The solution should be to provide the tools necessary to preserve as much agency using technology to people who want to. You should also keep in mind the middle tier technical people who need a bit of hand holding. But do not waste your time on the general public because they don't share or comprehend your goals.
    • erikerikson 5mo ago
      No, they calculate in the fact of that lack of control into their purchase decision. They mostly didn't want that control in the first place. They just want to _______, for many things you can fill in the blank, including things like look good, appear classy, get high, get laid...
      • techteach00 5mo ago
        I respectfully disagree with "they calculate in the fact of that lack of control into their purchase decision". The average person is not calculating anything but price, is it what everyone else is using, is it new etc. Very low level calculations. They aren't asking "can I install applications from outside the app store?". Etc.
        • erikerikson 5mo ago
          Hrrm. It seems your original comment has been heavily edited. > They aren't asking "can I install applications from outside the app store?" I agree. They don't want to. They already can't begin to evaluate app trustworthiness and don't want to have to. And they shouldn't have to. Yet they live in a world where they do. So they lean on reputation, app store filtering, the legal system, and hope.
          • bigyabai 5mo ago
            > I agree. They don't want to. That's not what the parent was saying. Most people don't have any opinion whatsoever on sideloading. You can go confirm this for yourself by asking a Mac or PC owner how scary it is. Most of them will respond that they genuinely never thought about it, not that they're afraid to consider it. To these people, it's a normal feature of their device that you could never remove. The parent is lamenting that people don't care about this technology - Client Side Scanning, hardware attestation, Push notification surveillance - all of it is enabled not because of fear, but apathy. > And they shouldn't have to. Yet they live in a world where they do. This is fearmongering logic that doesn't really defend the App Store. Putting your faith in a centralized software auditor also requires you to pay attention and stay abreast of scams. It's just a different exploit chain to deliver the same payloads: https://blog.lastpass.com/posts/warning-fraudulent-app-impersonating-lastpass-currently-available-in-apple-app-store https://blog.lastpass.com/posts/warning-fraudulent-app-imper...
  • ninjahawk1 5mo ago
    [dead]
  • locknitpicker 5mo ago
    > Apple already does this and practically no one is outraged Apple ran a very successful propaganda campaign where they portray themselves as the protectors and enforcers of a secure environment where users are safe from attacks from the wild internet. See Apple's spin on blocking cookies. Therefore, users of Apple products are conditioned to believe these measures exist for their own personal benefit, unlike Google which is presumed to be motivated to abuse your trust.
  • deaton 5mo ago
    [dead]
  • kennywinker 5mo ago
    Apple is the classic “good king”. By and large they have used their power in ways that benefit users. Other than enriching apple, there’s been no direct or apparent harm to the end user from the walled garden. I know that is a controversial point, but harms we don’t ever know about are pretty hard to get upset about. But the “good” king never lasts. They’re always eventually replaced by a despot, and all the power you ceded to the “good” king falls into the hands of the bad king. Which is why ceding that power is a bad idea, and kings are a terrible system of government.
    • chermi 5mo ago
      Please explain what makes them good? They make a better product than most, but they also charge more than most. That's just a business model.
      • raddan 5mo ago
        For one thing, Apple has tended to focus on privacy at the expense of profit. Apple could certainly be monetizing all of their user data. Now more than ever. It's not just businesses that want your data to sell you stuff, it's the hyperscalers wanting to funnel it into AI training. Apple is not perfect, by any means. I recently had a conversation with a former Apple employee about how they employ differential privacy internally. This former employee was upset about Apple's interpretation of one parameter ("privacy budget"), but the fact that we're having this conversation at all is a positive. Google, despite being an early adopter of differential privacy, is on the other side of the privacy spectrum: virtually everything they provide is intended to capture what you do on- or off-line. I will pay a premium for Apple stuff for this, and other reasons. I do wish they were more developer-friendly, however. Enough so that every time I buy a new computer I have to run through the mental calculus of whether I'd rather fight with the cathedral or the bazaar. I recently bought a new computer and the cathedral won the last round.
        • curt15 5mo ago
          >For one thing, Apple has tended to focus on privacy at the expense of profit. A company reveals its priorities when it is forced to make inconvenient choices. What privacy compromises did the CCP force out of Apple in exchange for doing business in China?
  • isodev 5mo ago
    That's perhaps where the part about educating less tech-savvy folks comes in. There are even professionals in tech under the mistaken belief that Apple meaningfully adds value in exchange for one's freedom to use one's device as one chooses. Big Tech loves normalising the story how only they can help
  • Magnusmaster 5mo ago
    And it was a huge mistake. The laws are the same for everyone. If Apple can do this then so can Google.
• deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
• intended 5mo ago
  I agree with the direction, but not the blind spot. Your audience is going to shut you out if you don’t show you understand their reality. I reach out to people, and every tech and media person I know, is holding sessions on government over reach and invasion of privacy, raising alarm bells. Everyone not in tech, has just about had it with being predated upon, being screwed over and in general would rather warm themselves on a bonfire of tech stock, than do a thing to support it. Voters are HAPPY to see tech brought under control. The degree of fraud, predation, privacy invasion that regular adults encounter, let alone children, is absurd. To take the most civil and benign trend I know: online communities are dying to a glut of slop, bots, and spam. Users and mods are simply unable to keep up with this, and are increasingly likely to ding users as much as bots. A majority of humanity, who live in the developing world, encounter even worse, AND have less recourse to support. ——- Success in these things requires connecting with people. You cannot do that if you come across as a know it all. You must open with an acknowledgement that Tech is not doing a good job for users, but giving governments sweeping powers is not the antidote.
• superloika 5mo ago
  > If you want to make a meaningful contribution, however small, then make it a point to educate people about the control they are giving to large corporations like Google. This is a fool's errand. We live in a time without virtuous values, where convenience is king. The masses don't care about cookies or consent, they accept all. They only understand direct punishment.
  • dmos62 5mo ago
    Generalizing like this is a fool's errand, if anything. We care, and we are part of the "masses". If this is something you care about, share with others: there will be those who value it.
    • intended 5mo ago
      HN is NOT part of the “masses” in the sense “masses” is being used here. A difference is being drawn between HN users who are interested in tech, and the everyone else. Most of humanity has little interest in Tech, and would rather spend their time on other things. This also means they are less aware of ways to keep themselves safe, or less on top of whatever current threat is sweeping through the internet. After multiple interactions on this site, I can say with some confidence that the average HN commenter does not have the same experience with technology that the average user does. This divergence is resulting in different priorities and conversations.
      • dmos62 5mo ago
        I agree about HN being technically literate. I have non-technical friends that definitely care about privacy, their rights, maintaining a healthy economy, freedom in general. Then I have friends that don't really pay attention to that. I'm saying don't lump people into a single silly generalization. Edit: I think that, given that us HNers often self-identify as tech priests, advocacy and education should follow naturally from that.
  • khriss 5mo ago
    > The masses don't care about cookies or consent, they accept all. They only understand direct punishment. Honestly, I can totally see where the cynicism is coming from, however if you think about it, that's a pretty condescending view. This effort might be Sisyphean, but things are not as dire as you might think. People are already seething at how much their lives are being enshitified by Big Co. Even if 10% of voters reach out to their representatives, it would be a tidal wave. Politicians are terrified of the popular will and this is not a hill they are willing to die on. Just see the success of the right to repair movement as an example.
• locknitpicker 5mo ago
  > The superhuman efforts that folks on HN make to find technical workarounds and solutions is wonderful to see, but we must realize that this is not a technical problem. It's a social and legislative one. It can't be fought on technical grounds. This. No matter how good the intentions are, this represents the infrastructure that can be exploited to persecute individuals and groups and deprive them from the most basic rights. And before anyone tries to downplay this as scaremongering, US legislators have introduced the legal framework to reject visas based on what comments the applicant may or may not have said in the past years regarding the current government.
• VoodooJuJu 5mo ago
  [dead]
• raincole 5mo ago
  > Right now, the vast majority of users are being bombarded with a one sided narrative of how 'insecure' their devices are. They read almost everyday about someone losing their life's savings due to 'hackers'. In this environment, they genuinely believe locking down their devices will make them more secure and prevent them from being 'hacked'. Nope. It's not the issue. The issue is people genuinely want the security problem to be solved by someone else. Either governments or big companies. So they can just not care about security once and for all. If people were so aware of so-called hackers and how insecure their devices are, we would have seen people stopped installing apps on their phones and basically use it as a web browser. But that's not what happens. The opposite is truer: if you run an even slightly popular website you will receive feedback asking if you have an app version. > In my experience, once the issue is framed as 'Google will decide what you can do with your phone' every single person is immediately outraged. Oh boy, you're going to be really surprised.
• mghackerlady 5mo ago
  I think part of it is the hackers that the media reports on are entirely malicious. Most hackers aren't, we just like computers
  • bluGill 5mo ago
    Evil people always get in the news. Sadly much as I agree with OP, the reality is there are a lot of evil people, and some of them lead a country and thus have vast resources to attack with. We need to solve this problem, not just cry about what a few of us are losing.
• underdeserver 5mo ago
  There is a tradeoff between the freedom users have on their devices on one side, and the likelihood less sophisticated users will get their information stolen or their devices pwned and used to DoS innocent websites on the other side. If you don't address this tradeoff you're not really engaging the issue. What I think we need is a professional, well-informed advocate of freedom who is willing to seriously discuss the tradeoff and concede that neither extreme is ideal.
  • khriss 5mo ago
    > What I think we need is a professional, well-informed advocate of freedom who is willing to seriously discuss the tradeoff and concede that neither extreme is ideal. There is no shortage of well informed advocates of freedom. The question is, which forum should they discuss this in? There is no meaningful forum for such a debate which will have any real effect on policy and that's by design. The only place that can both debate and effect policy changes in the legislature and politicians will never take the people's side against corporations on an issue until they fear losing reelection. Hence the ask to educate the people around you and to encourage them to reach out to their representatives.
  • deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
• goda90 5mo ago
  I just submitted a survey to my state's DMV to encourage them to ditch reCAPTCHA. I went to renew my plates and had to do almost a dozen "click the picture" screens to get through on IronFox on my GrapheneOS phone the other day. Luckily no QR code with the whole Play Integrity check, but that wouldn't have been out of the realm of possibility.
• pietrrrek 5mo ago
  > In my experience, once the issue is framed as 'Google will decide what you can do with your phone' every single person is immediately outraged. I've had a lengthy debate about this (in the context of right-to-repair) with a friend of mine who's outside tech and he genuinely held (still holds?) the opinion that the manufacturer has the "right" to decide how their products are used. I'm willing to bet that this is a common viewpoint of people outside the tech sphere, they just want a device that "works", which for them is essentially just "I can use apps from the App store".
  • locknitpicker 5mo ago
    > 'm willing to bet that this is a common viewpoint of people outside the tech sphere, they just want a device that "works", which for them is essentially just "I can use apps from the App store". Perhaps some people were just conditioned to believe that these shackles are forced upon them for their own good, because only bad people would ever want to take them off.
    • shimman 5mo ago
      Seriously, finding bootlickers aren't hard. The better question to ask is how many voters are bootlickers and that typically hovers around 20-30%, so the follow-up question should be what type of platform could capture the remaining 70-80% of the electorate? Turns out right to repair laws are very popular with voters and small business owners. Maybe we all start to tread down that path more and figure out what sorts of regulations pressures companies into adopting open standards?
  • chermi 5mo ago
    I mean I agree with you. But also, it's not that unreasonable of an opinion. As long as it's coupled with optionality, which I think is the actual issue. Well the actual "issue" is that most people don't care or think that much at all about it. HN is a very special crowd.
    • taurath 5mo ago
      For people who are just technology consumers they don’t see what could be offered, only what is. This is so frustrating when one understands how railroaded everyone is into maximizing platform ad revenue while holding the reasons people go on the platforms out as a carrot on a stick that gets further and further away. It’s 300 PHD psychologists vs someone just trying to keep up with their family.
• trinsic2 5mo ago
  Is there a good primer on why this is bad? I know that it is on a technical level. But I havent heard anyone talk about in layman's terms Maybe I'll need to write something up. But it be great to have some resources as to why this is bad from a perspective other than my own. I'm doing a presentation on Surveillance Capitalism soon and I might include this topic.
• deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
• sambuccid 5mo ago
  Petitions are also a good way of reaching out to people and explain the dangers of these issues. Many people that usually sign petitions are notified of new ones, and, as a generalisation, they are usually fairly against big tech. If anyone knows of any european petition around this please share them with us