3 ms·

And you probably feel that way because you're deeply intimate with the inner-workings of computers and so having "control" means something to you. That's not tr

And you probably feel that way because you're deeply intimate with the inner-workings of computers and so having "control" means something to you. That's not true for most of the population. Let's replace "cars" with "computers" in the freedom slogan. I know nothing about cars, and to be honest, I don't really care to. Cars help me get from A to B, and I would gladly trade freedom to tinker with the inner workings of my car for greater convenience in accomplishing my goal (getting from A to B). I only have so much time in the day, and figuring out how my car works simply doesn't fit into the equation, and it wouldn't interest me even if it did. Now replace car with computer and you have a good idea of what an even larger portion of the population thinks.

userbinator 12y ago
The difference between cars and computers is that people are still relatively still in control of their cars (and they should be if they're driving them...), and there isn't all that much variability in what cars can do - "get from A to B" - nor is there currently much that the manufacturers can do to interfere with that ability to "get from A to B". On the other hand, computers are how we communicate with and consume information from others; they are essentially how we view the world. Thus what power the companies-in-control have to limit, persuade, and otherwise manipulate the population who uses computers is far greater than what they can do with cars. To come back to the car analogy, if the manufacturers had the same type of power those making computers and their software did, they would be able to remotely control your car to make it go not where you want it to, disable it if you tried to drive to "non-approved/licensed" locations or if you attempted to drive faster than they allowed, carried more passengers than licensed for, etc. Of course, convenience and control are not disjoint either - and more control can also lead to greater convenience, as users customise the software they use to make their use of it more convenient.

userbinator 12y ago

The difference between cars and computers is that people are still relatively still in control of their cars (and they should be if they're driving them...), and there isn't all that much variability in what cars can do - "get from A to B" - nor is there currently much that the manufacturers can do to interfere with that ability to "get from A to B". On the other hand, computers are how we communicate with and consume information from others; they are essentially how we view the world. Thus what power the companies-in-control have to limit, persuade, and otherwise manipulate the population who uses computers is far greater than what they can do with cars. To come back to the car analogy, if the manufacturers had the same type of power those making computers and their software did, they would be able to remotely control your car to make it go not where you want it to, disable it if you tried to drive to "non-approved/licensed" locations or if you attempted to drive faster than they allowed, carried more passengers than licensed for, etc. Of course, convenience and control are not disjoint either - and more control can also lead to greater convenience, as users customise the software they use to make their use of it more convenient.