Linux on the desktop is a real mental harm for the user.
In what way? I am writing this from a Linux desktop. Couldn't be happier.
I have to use Windows at work, so it's fair to say I know the difference between the two.
Google's software mistreats or harms the user
181–190 of 291 posts
Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but I feel very much more in control of my Microsoft box that I am of my Apple or Google one. Hahaha, you haven't seen the data MS collects on Windows 10 users? Try enable full telemetry and download their tool, every damn URL gets logged and even some of the "basic" data might reveal trends when combined with other data sets. NO "big tech" company is to be trusted. Cambridge Analytica and co taught us that. Data a…
You may have missed my point, which was not about the default or intent, but about the amount of control they let me have on my actual computer; the ability to change its behavior to make it do what I want. I have done what you say about having a look at the telemetry feeds, and as such I know that a simple run of 0&0 ShutUp 10 allows me to stop it. Not a complex kernel thing or whatever, just a simple user land appl…
0&0 ShutUp 10? WTF is this shit? All it does is let you set regular Windows settings (which are far from protecting your privacy)and in exchange will happily collect information about you and will use it for targeted advertisment:
Data collected as part of the operation of our Services – In order to provide the service you request, we collect and store a range of data, including device information, technical usage data, location data, error logs and data, from the computers you monitor with O&O Syspectr and server.
...
O&O may contact you from to time to time on behalf of external business partners in order to draw your attention to special offers that might interest you.
Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 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'm not sure that this makes a great case for him ceasing his endless fight to change "the real world in terms of technology" to reflect a vision that would allow everyone the choice to live as he does. It's quite literally the only thing he's known for, and all he'll be remembered for by most people.
Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've managed to acknowledge and then ignore the point. You aren't trustworthy. Or maybe you are, but I don't know that. A bank is. There's history of acting, if not ethically, at least not totally unethically, even without government regulations. Wells Fargo, Visa, and Coinbase all have decreasing sets of regulations, but all have more consumer trust than "badrequest".
> There's history of acting, if not ethically, at least not totally unethically, even without government regulations. I do not believe that this is a thing that is true. There is no well-known history of ethical unregulated banks.
Like I said, not ethically, but not totally unethically: they'll absolutely try to rip you off, but they won't just steal your money.
Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user
#185Almost 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.…
I agree with you, this appears to be part of the lies and false narratives put out by evil totalitarian regimes in China and Russia to distract us from their activities. Especially since these tech companies are leading lights on human rights.
Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not semantic bullshit. It depends on what value you substitute for "child" when you think about it. It's different when you're thinking 5yo vs. 15yo. If anything, being outraged at calling parental controls censorship is what's bullshit. "Censorship is bad and protecting children is good, therefore parental controls are not censorship". We could instead call spade a spade, and then talk about when its use is jus…
The point is that legally parents are allowed to make that choice among other things. It doesn't matter if the kids are the direct user. This is the legal framework we live in
Disagree. We’re allowed to dislike the legal framework we live in. We’re allowed to say, if we wish to, that our laws appear to force[1] parents to use censorship to limit what their kids see, and that that is a bad thing. Furthermore we can say we disagree with the rules defining that censorship — for example, I have always been more disturbed by violent content than sexual, and I wish that fictional depictions of murder were even more unusual than fictional depictions of rape currently are in daytime television, i.e. never.
Of course I already know the standard counter-arguments, but those don’t change the visceral annoyance I have with a system that considers all full-frontal nudity to be a bigger problem than watching someone being shot, stabbed, or poisoned. I am also annoyed that the rules of these parental filters seem to copy American sociopolitical norms by default.
[1] reality depends on your jurisdiction, and I am not a lawyer in any case, but people still get to say that if they mistakenly think it’s true :-)
Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
The costs? Are you joking? Of to the 2 Billion people using Chrome, point out just one for whom the privacy implications around autocomplete have imposed a non-theoretical cost. There's the cost you impose on yourself for paranoia, but lay THAT at the feet of the FSF. And if you say bandwidth you're fired. It's privacy the FSF is grumbling about. And for that it's been rhetoric and theoretical suffering, but no actua…
> point out just one for whom the privacy implications around autocomplete have imposed a non-theoretical cost Type "p" in the address bar at work?
And again, you're talking hypothetical. Anything is harmful in theory. I can think of a thousand ways in which privacy itself is harmful in theory, it's not even hard. But unless it actually happens somewhere to someone it's quite likely my assumptions are faulty.
Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
(a) he does not do it (b) it is not really possible for those whom he wants to "empower" to live like it is 1980s while maintaining life as it is needed in 2019. This is why he rubs people the wrong way when he peddles his philosophy as something that is possible in practice. Do I, a person who is pretty happy playing with computers, writing code, sometimes helping others with their technological issues or helping th…
> (b) it is not really possible for those whom he wants to "empower" to live like it is 1980s while maintaining life as it is needed in 2019.
You say that as if it is a law of nature, rather than specifically and intentionally caused by people he has made a life's work of railing against.
He would rather it be effortless for you to live like he does, and spends all of his time on that problem. On what planet is that somehow hypocritical, except to the people who are his targets, and create entire business plans around preventing people from living like Stallman?
Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is there anything these guys like? Stallman and Gnu are extremists People fighting for human rights have always been labeled extremists, it's not a particularly original idea you had there.
Calling the fight for "free software" as defined by the FSF a matter of human rights is a bit of a stretch, eh?
The right to know what is running on the devices that control your life is a right, and we are humans.
Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
> also an insincere definition of DRM I have no idea what you mean by that. I really need you to elaborate, because it sounds like a perfect description of DRM. It's there to stop you from playing/copying files, and nothing else.
The purpose is to extend what I as the producer of the files can do, giving me the ability to send you a file and still control your usage.
except it doesn't.
as a producer, you are led to believe that you will make more profit by using DRM. but by the time you dilute all your returns with the restricted distribution channels, same loss due to piracy (because, surprise, drm doesn't prevents it) and no forced sales increase because people who would buy with drm would buy without it anyway, you realize your profits are now lower than not using DRM. But there is no metric you can easily check, because all distribution channels sell you on DRM, because the distribution channel do make more with it. (the only paper I've ever read exploring this hypothesis had to use borderline porn content metrics)
unless I misread your comment and your desired usage control is antagonistic to your own profit.