Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google's software mistreats or harms the user

gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 291 posts

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#61

Post by new_realist »

johannes1234321 wrote: post #51
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.…

Picking a random point: DRM is malware. It is extra software with the only purpose to limit what I can do. Of course there is no alternative as long as consumers accept it. And consumers don't care since it all seems to work.

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.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#63

Post by new_realist »

esotericn wrote: post #2

All of this is trivially and obviously true to power users of GNU/Linux systems. My machine does precisely what I want, when I want it, in the way that I want it. If it doesn't, within reasonable constraints like physical possibility, I can open a text editor, and make it do so. Sure, that might take me a long time. I can add almost all of this configuration to stuff like git repos; back it up; transfer it between co…

The fact that you have a beef with USB tethering does not refute the fact that OSS usability is generally shit, and that would likely also apply to smartphones. So it’s a choice between “good” and “poor, but OSS.”

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#64

Post by normalhuman »

nolok wrote: post #34
normalhuman wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average user certainly doesn't worry about any of this, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't. The worst, of course, is the tragedy of the commons dynamics. A lot of harm that comes from surveillance capitalism does not affect someone in particular, but it amounts to great damage to society as a whole. For example, by degrading public discourse, addicting people to screen time while robbing them of living the…

> The average user certainly doesn't worry about any of this, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't. I think the point he was making, in part, was that if the average user worried about those things, they would WANT most of those features and decisions.

Sure, that is why I mention the tragedy of the commons. People (me included, I'm not claiming to be a saint) very easily rationalize exchanging short-term personal comfort for the long term social good, and the adtech people know this very well.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#66

Post by ssully »

johannes1234321 wrote: post #51
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.…

Picking a random point: DRM is malware. It is extra software with the only purpose to limit what I can do. Of course there is no alternative as long as consumers accept it. And consumers don't care since it all seems to work.

I also have my gripes with DRM, but what you defined is 100% not malware, and also an insincere definition of DRM.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#67

Post by ocdtrekkie »

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.

Google is not your friend. Google is a multi-billion dollar international corporation which sells advertising. It does have a good marketing team that makes cutesy artwork for it's PR campaigns though.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#68

Post by creeble »

leshow wrote: post #39
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.…

> - 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.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#69

Post by skybrian »

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.

Your "friend" analogy is basically the perspective of someone who wouldn't put their money in a bank. If you wouldn't trust a friend to hold thousands of dollars for you, why would you trust a bank?

It's questionable whether Google deserves similar trust as a bank since they aren't regulated in a similar way. But it isn't unusual for people to trust companies over friends for some things, such as their life savings.

The other thing to remember is that trust can be partial. For example, I wouldn't trust a bank not to be looking for legal ways to charge me fees and I wouldn't trust their investment advice, but I'd trust them to keep their ATM's working and not to lose my money.

Re: Google's software mistreats or harms the user

#70

Post by plttn »

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 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.

Post reply on HN