Google's software mistreats or harms the user • Hacker News Board

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#81

Post by ChrisSD » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 5:57 PM UTC

henryfjordan wrote: post #71

whatshisface wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you come at it from the perspective that Google is your friend, as in not like a real friend (who I wouldn't let change my passwords), but a friend that's even better than a real friend, then sure, these points are paranoid. The GNU perspective is very distrustful of the idea that anyone else should be administrating their devices, and refuses to trust any corporation more than they would a friend.

The GNU completely ignores the value that you get from Google. For instance this point: > Google Chrome contains a key logger that sends Google every URL typed in, one key at a time They are describing the auto complete feature... I get that people should be making informed choices about what data they share, but for the FSF to so intentionally mis-describe what is going on does not help inform anyone.

Wait but that's literally what the auto complete feature does. Most users understand the value of the feature (they use it!) but there's a good reason to spell out the cost too.

I agree with the criticism that they should draw a clearer line between the cost and the benefit but there's nothing to be gained by softening the language used to describe the cost.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#82

Post by cptskippy » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:05 PM UTC

tathougies wrote: post #37

Ajedi32 wrote: post #25

Almost all of this is heavily exaggerated, presenting relatively innocuous features as if they were harmful, or calling out simple bugs as if they were intentional and actively malicious. None of it is flat-out wrong per-se (at least as far as I can tell), and I can certainly see where GNU is coming from, but I think for the average user most of the features they're criticizing actually do a lot more good than harm.…

> Ignoring the fact that there is basically no OS in existence that can't be infected with malware. To be fair to GNU, GNU Hurd cannot be infected with malware because no one is quite sure how to install it and keep it running for any meaningful amount of time.

I thought it was agreed that Security through obscurity was frowned upon.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#83

Post by jammygit » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:06 PM UTC

ChrisSD wrote: post #81

henryfjordan wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GNU completely ignores the value that you get from Google. For instance this point: > Google Chrome contains a key logger that sends Google every URL typed in, one key at a time They are describing the auto complete feature... I get that people should be making informed choices about what data they share, but for the FSF to so intentionally mis-describe what is going on does not help inform anyone.

Wait but that's literally what the auto complete feature does. Most users understand the value of the feature (they use it!) but there's a good reason to spell out the cost too. I agree with the criticism that they should draw a clearer line between the cost and the benefit but there's nothing to be gained by softening the language used to describe the cost.

Years ago I used to assume autocompletions were performed on device, not sent to a server

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#84

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:07 PM UTC

hyperhopper wrote: post #74

new_realist wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If DRM allows you to consume content you would not otherwise have access to, it is a feature. What does it limit you from doing, in particular? Running custom software on your device? That’s a funny definition of malware.

DRM doesn't allow you to consume content. There is nothing technical about DRM that helps deliver content to me. I think you may be referring to businesses making an anti-user decision to withhold content, and mistaking exceptions to that to be things useful to a user.

I don't see how it's an anti-user decision. Whether it's bits over the network or physical stuff, why should they have to send me their product if they don't want to?

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#85

Post by craigsmansion » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:07 PM UTC

notyourday wrote: post #53

TeMPOraL wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there anything these guys like? Free (as in freedom) Software. > Stallman and Gnu are extremists The word you're looking for is "radicals"; "extremists" carries connotations with violence and illegal behavior, which is the exact opposite of what Stallman/FSF stand for. Are these views radical? Yes. But are they wrong ? The way I see it, RMS has been writing about what's wrong with the software world for decades…

Look, I like RMS. I casually know him. We had dinner a few times, mostly with other people at the table. He is very interesting to talk to. It pains me to say it but he is a Luddite. He would be quite happy in the world of late 1980s because that's where him and his quaint way of technology, society and progress fits in swimmingly. And maybe he is right. But here's the thing: he simply outsourced his need for modern…

I'm fairly sure that a hypothetically retired RMS would have no problem calling a restaurant, over a landline or hopefully a freedom-respecting mobile device.

Also that, should he go for a drive, maybe to a folk-dancing festival, he would use GPS and maps, maybe the paper variety.

As for the people inviting him to speak at a conference taking care of his scheduling and accommodation, I think that's fairly common and polite.

> I wish I could have a life like that.

By and large, you can. Whether you actually want to is another matter.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#86

Post by plttn » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:08 PM UTC

decoyworker wrote: post #73

plttn wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's one of those situations where he has the ability to wax poetic from his ivory tower simply because he doesn't have to exist in the real world in terms of technology. If he had to exist in the real world, he would find it a lot harder to stick to those principles.

I think it's also that his entire livelihood depends on him continuing to do so.

It's the problem with leaning into a niche viewpoint. You have to continue to lean harder and harder into that viewpoint as the times change in order to keep the people who also believe in that viewpoint supporting you.

I genuinely think the FSF/RMS level hate of non-free software will continue to die out as everyone starts to die/retire from public eye. Whether or not that's a good thing overall is not something I'm going to touch, but it seems like there's not enough being this aggressive to keep this viewpoint sustainable.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#87

Post by craigsmansion » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:14 PM UTC

decoyworker wrote: post #73

plttn wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's one of those situations where he has the ability to wax poetic from his ivory tower simply because he doesn't have to exist in the real world in terms of technology. If he had to exist in the real world, he would find it a lot harder to stick to those principles.

I think it's also that his entire livelihood depends on him continuing to do so.

It doesn't.

RMS could very likely retire today, find himself a nice seaside property, get himself a parrot, and sit outside in the sun in his pants and hack on emacs to his heart's content.

The only genuinely weird thing about RMS is that he doesn't do exactly that.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#88

Post by TeMPOraL » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:17 PM UTC

creeble wrote: post #68

leshow wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - They describe Google's demonstrated ability to remove malware from user's devices as a "backdoor" from wikipedia "A backdoor is a method, often secret, of bypassing normal authentication or encryption in a computer system, a product, or an embedded device " Seems to fit. > - They describe parental controls as "censorship" "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the…

Aren't the parental controls voluntary censorship? That is requested by the user? True by definition, but not by intent.

Depends on who you consider the user. Children subject to parental control censorship aren't voluntary parties.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#89

Post by dantondwa » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:18 PM UTC

metabagel wrote: post #33

dantondwa wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To further specify: go read the user reviews of the kids in Google Play Store for the app. Apart from being hilarious, they are actually quite sad and I understand, in part, their points.

Sorry, for which app?

Sorry, I didn't specify it. It's "Google Family link for children and teens" (and not the similarly named app for the parents).

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#90

Post by TeMPOraL » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:20 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #84

hyperhopper wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DRM doesn't allow you to consume content. There is nothing technical about DRM that helps deliver content to me. I think you may be referring to businesses making an anti-user decision to withhold content, and mistaking exceptions to that to be things useful to a user.

I don't see how it's an anti-user decision. Whether it's bits over the network or physical stuff, why should they have to send me their product if they don't want to?

DRM isn't about them not sending the product - it's about them sending the product and then hijacking the computer I own to prevent me from using the product the way I like.

DRM schemes are anti-user decisions in the sense that users are presented with a choice of either allowing companies to hijack their machines to enforce a subpar experience, or walking away.