Apple enabling client-side CSAM scanning on iPhone tomorrow

>99% of the population will delegate the decision of what code is allowed to run to someone, be it the manufacturer, the government, some guy on the Internet or whatever. For that 99% of the population, by the way, it's actually more beneficial to have restrictions on what software can be installed to avoid malware

I do not agree with this. You are saying people are too stupid to make decisions and that is amoral in my opinion.

>"Impossible to leave" is not a matter of closed or open, but it's a matter of social networks in general. You could make Facebook free software and its problems wouldn't disappear.

Data portability is a thing. This was the original problem with FB and thats how we got 'takeout'.

>Yes, it's been years since I talked someone face to face or on the phone and I cannot send letters anymore.

>Is this Mr. Robot talking now?

Using the extreme in arguments is dishonest. We are talking on HN where it is a selective group of like minded people(bubble). How does your delivery driver communicate with their social circles? Or anyone that services you? You will find different technical solutions are used as you move up and down the social hierarchy.

>The main problem with privacy and computer control is a collective one that must be solved through laws.

Technology moves faster than what any law maker can create. We do not need more laws as technology advances but rather an enforcement of personal rights and protections enabling users to be aware of what is happening. It appears you are stating "people aren't smart enough to control their devices" and "We need laws to govern people" vs my argument that "people should be given the freedom to chose" and "existing laws should be enforced and policy makers should protect citizens with informed consent".

Has apple published its training data somewhere?

- terrorism - child pornography

Try to protest it and you will be prompted with a nice "do you have anything to hide?" question by the masses.

The advertised intention of these tools could not be farther from the truth and people happily fills their pockets at each new launch.

If all your friends are in a Mastodon instance and you think that instance is scanning your messages, you'll find it hard to leave because leaving the instance for another that doesn't share messages with that one means stopping communication with your friends.

> You just switch to any other instance, because Mastodon doesn't prevent you from doing that.

Controlled by another third party. Not to mention that, with enough users, there will be feature divergence so "switching" won't be that easy.

Want a real world example? See email. Open protocol with multiple client-server implementations. However, most people use one of the major providers (Google, Microsoft...), there are incompatibilities between clients and even if you "can switch", it's not that easy nor gets done often. Yes, you can switch to ProtonMail or something more secure if you want, but that won't solve the problems of the 99% of people that will use general providers and won't even know they can't switch.

> We need both. You cannot force Facebook to allow interoperability when there is no other social network.

Right now you could force Facebook to be interoperable and be open source and still 99% of the people would be on the original Facebook instance. Again, it's not a technical issue.