Google's software mistreats or harms the user

Post by greyhair » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 2:24 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #32

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.…

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.

Post by greyhair » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 2:55 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.

Post by leshow » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 3:38 PM UTC

anchpop wrote: post #162

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…

This is an example of the noncentral fallacy. It's quite easy to do this for other situations. Was Martin Luther King a criminal? A criminal is someone who breaks the law, and King knowingly broke a law against peacefully protesting against segregation, so yes. Is it sexist to only hire women for a lingerie ad? Discrimination on the basis of sex is sexist, so yes. Is it murder for a doctor to euthanize someone who wi…

Post by nybble41 » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 4:56 PM UTC

lazyasciiart wrote: post #255

nybble41 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...giving me the ability to send you a file and still control your usage. This is exactly why DRM is malware. It's not your device. You don't get to say what it may or may not do. That's for the device's owner to decide. malware: Software that is specifically designed to disrupt, damage, or gain unauthorized access to a computer system. " rel="nofollow">https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/malware> Your explicit in…

Without DRM, I won't send you the file. If I don't send you the file, you can't play it at all. So DRM has increased what you can do.

Post by nybble41 » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 5:19 PM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #256

nybble41 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of "owning" data is incoherent, which readily explains the issues with DRM. It is an attempt to apply rules suited only for scarce property to non-scarce information. Owning a resource means that you get to decide how the resource is consumed, i.e. used up . This is exclusive only to the extent that scarce resources cannot be put to two conflicting uses simultaneously, so active use by anyone else would prev…

The vast majority of places in the world recognize the right for a creator to exclusively reproduce their creative works for a period of time so that they may enjoy profit from their creativity. That may be semantically different than “ownership”, but is otherwise functionally irrelevant in the context of this conversation.