Live data from Hacker News

Google's software mistreats or harms the user

gnu.org

221–230 of 291 posts

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#221

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.

GP's points still stand, if coming from the perspective that Google is a successful, multinational corporation, with a reputation to protect, and staffed with thousands of engineers who also have their own job standards and individual reputation to protect.

And again they don't stand if your perspective accounts for the following observable facts:

- Multinational corporations care little about their reputation - the public has very short memory, and it's rare that a reputational issue outweighs considerations like sunk costs, network effect, or lack of better alternative on the market. See literally almost every scandal involving a corporation ever.

- The larger the organization, the less individual ethical and reputational concerns of bottom-line workers matter. See literally every corporation. For particular recent examples, see e.g. Volkswagen emissions scandal or Boeing 737 Max fiasco, both cases involving actual engineers with actual careers on the line, and not just software devs risking unemployment for 10 minutes.

Note that both statements are explainable even without attributing malice to any corporation. They're side effect of scale and market power.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#222

Earlier 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…

> Yeah, now we know why his companion is a parrot.

To what end would you write something like that?

Also, as far as I know he likes staying with people who have a parrot, but asks people explicitly not to give him a parrot because he's often travelling and couldn't properly care for it. I doubt he has a parrot.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The product is the media content. Our society and legal framework says you don't own that content. You might own your device, but you don't own that bit of data stored on it. Said data owner requires you to consume the data in certain ways. How do you reconcile the two conflicting requirements? One way is to invent crazy DRM schemes.

Of course, I'd argue most DRM pushes normal people to piracy because the restrictions usually suck. Had they just distributed the content in a more unrestricted way, they'd do more business. But that is a business problem, not a technical one.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#224

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.

> What does it (DRM) limit you from doing, in particular? How about: - Using the fast forward function in media playback software to skip over advertisements. - Ripping DVD and Blu-Ray movies for use with a media server. - Playing movies and games from other countries (region locking.) - Recording or streaming console gameplay (e.g. HDCP on PS3, disabling the share function in certain PS4 games.) - Running certain so…

Don't use that content if you don't like the restrictions it imposes on you.

DRM sucks, but you don't have to use it.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is a keylogger. Autocomplete with a remote backend is too. The Overton window has moved so far in the last ten years. A while back we (and by we I don't mean me, I mean hackers collectively) would consider a piece of software that opened a TCP socket unless it had a real reason to malware. Now? It's fairly common for like, webpages to send back every keystroke you might accidentally make whilst a tab is foc…

The Overton window describes what the public will accept as "sane" (to use your term). You're free to disagree with the rest of the world, of course. But you might want to focus on trying to shift the Overton window. What you're doing in this comment is simply asserting that you disagree with everyone else.

That's literally what FSF is doing - desperately pulling one edge of the window to prevent it from sliding into madness.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

In the world of cryptocurrencies, everything to the "less regulation" side of Coinbase actually did steal your money.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that 'malware' is short for 'malicious software', one might make a semantic argument that DRM is actually anti-malware , as it prevents other software from operating maliciously. Copyright infringement is undoubtedly a malicious act under the law in most places. Any kind of security, authentication, or encryption software ever written was done so to "limit what you can do", so I don't think that is enough to co…

> Copyright infringement is undoubtedly a malicious act... You're seriously trying to argue that people who commit copyright infringement do so maliciously, i.e. with the intent of harming the copyright holder? That seems... novel. And not very plausible. If true, however, it would be much more effective to ignore the work altogether, thus denying the copyright holder both direct income and free publicity. > Any kind…

> You're seriously trying to argue that people who commit copyright infringement do so maliciously, i.e. with the intent of harming the copyright holder? That seems... novel. And not very plausible. If true, however, it would be much more effective to ignore the work altogether, thus denying the copyright holder both direct income and free publicity.

Your incredulity seems intellectually dishonest.

If not malicious, how would you describe enjoying a {book, movie, song, program, ...} that someone has offered for sale without paying for it?

Granted, it's not as clear cut as theft. You aren't depriving anyone of an item that they own.

Granted, the author may in some cases benefit indirectly from copyright infringement, e.g., when you go tell your more honest friends about it, and they go off and buy a copy for themselves.

But in a world where the vast majority of the folks who create these kinds of works need to get paid, and the way they get paid is by selling copies, consuming their work without paying for it seems really fundamentally unfair to them.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#228

This is purposely written in a foreboding way. A lot of this stuff is standard SaaS procedure. Google does tend to make some boneheaded moves though and Transparency is constant struggle for them. I personally stopped using chrome due to manifest V3. Not because of the tracking, the tracking makes my life easier. Just keep things secure, ok?

> This is purposely written in a foreboding way. A lot of this stuff is standard SaaS procedure. Just because it's standard , doesn't mean it's moral . FSF has been speaking about immorality of these practices for decades now. Their point is essentially that as a software creator, you shouldn't do it, and as a user, you shouldn't (for both ethical and practical reasons) subject yourself to these practices.

The question of what is moral is subjective. I listen to what some people have to say on topics of morality, but I generally ignore those who clearly use deceptive language or tactics. That category includes both the Westborough Baptist Church and the FSF.

The FSF isn't doing their cause any favors by being manipulative in this way.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#229
post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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…

Watching Netflix via a surveillance device or watching VHS rips of old shows is a false dichotomy. rms wants people to live in 2019 but with free software. As in, with more free software, not just software from the 80s.

> rms wants people to live in 2019 but with free software.

In order for that to work, society as we know it would need to be structured completely different. Who is going to build all this free software? How will they get paid?

And before you mumble on about "you can get paid for free software", show me how it is done on the scale required to build a netflix or a facebook. Who will build a device as elegant as an iphone with free software? How will it get funded.

Again, for it to work, you'd have to restructure the whole world from the ground up. That ain't gonna happen. I'm not even sure it would be desirable....

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Overton window describes what the public will accept as "sane" (to use your term). You're free to disagree with the rest of the world, of course. But you might want to focus on trying to shift the Overton window. What you're doing in this comment is simply asserting that you disagree with everyone else.

That's literally what FSF is doing - desperately pulling one edge of the window to prevent it from sliding into madness.

Indeed.
Post reply on HN