Hacker News Reader

Comment by aiisahik | Hacker News Reader

This is literally something that NEVER crosses the mind of the average consumer. We should have a HackerNews version of "first world problems" and call it "HackerNews Problems".

You now have a computer that is 10,000 times faster than one you had 30 yrs ago at half the price. Oh and it fits in your pocket. A lot of time and money went into creating that. Those people need to get paid. And yes you pay for it with some loss of privacy.

The reason why this product doesn't existing on the market is because because NOBODY (except the odd 4000 people on HN) wants this product. Most people don't even use a VPN or know what TOR is. If you don't want it, then design and fab your own chips and write your own software from scratch.

View on HN

> This is literally something that NEVER crosses the mind of the average consumer. We should have a HackerNews version of "first world problems" and call it "HackerNews Problems".

Should we call lead toxicity a "chemist's first world problem"? Should we call material flammability a "fireman's first world problem"? Equipment sterilization a "doctor's first world problem"?

We think about this, so that regular people don't have to. That's the point of specialization of labor. It's our moral duty to be aware of these problems, and to ensure end-users aren't hurt by these problems. As an industry, we've not only failed at this duty - we've been actively doing the opposite. Harming users of technology on purpose, making their lives worse in pursuit of extra profit.

It's not that users should care about whether or not they own their technology. Technology that isn't owned by the end-user, and actively exploits them instead, shouldn't be available on the consumer market in the first place.

Perhaps because most people don't know what we know.

I don't think about my car's airbags all that often because I'm not a mechanic or frequently in contact with sources of the latest airbag news. Two weeks ago I take my car in for some work and the mechanic walks out to me with this puzzled look on his face and asks why I have yet to have my airbags replaced; talks about how dangerous this brand is and goes on about the recall.

Now I'm interested. I had no idea. I've driven my nephews around in this car without any idea of the airbag issue. I've now been made aware and will act accordingly.

It's time for us to find a new source of analogies. Why is it always cars?

Regardless, cars increasingly feature the same sort of profit maximising nonsense: subscription-based services, problems that can only be solved by authorised dealerships, systems that can disable the car remotely, planned obsolescence etc.

There is an equivalent demand for Just A Car from people who don't want to fall into this trap.

HN is substantially larger than 4000 people, besides, telling people to design and fab their own chips is disingenuous.

The right to privacy is not a 'first world problem', it is a problem.

I agree that privacy is a problem - and yes it is a first world problem.

The specific privacy problem espoused by this post is not just a first world problem, it's an HN problem. I am being disingenuous - this request is pure insanity and I absolutely promise you that this "computer you fully own" will have such a very small market that it doesn't have a chance of breaking even.

You fail the principle of charity test on several levels.

Agreed, I care about privacy but this is fetishizing privacy, is pathological.

> I agree that privacy is a problem - and yes it is a first world problem.

Where a right for privacy really matters is not in the part of the world where your google searches are used to pick an etsy ad, but where typing the wrong thing against the wrong person could land you in jail, or at the morgue.

It’s only a problem because people in general are not willing to pay for it.

You and the OP have the same problem you want a solution but are not willing to pay the price. And you think that what you want is what most people want, but from what the market tells us they are pretty happy with what is being offered right now.

> You and the OP have the same problem you want a solution but are not willing to pay the price.

I don't think you can make statements about me with such a definitive tone without first asking some questions.

So let's say I'm willing to pay double or triple rate or more if needed, then show me a flagship phone with the same capabilities as a normal Android flagship phone but without the loss of privacy and ownership. You can't and you never have been able to. No completely free phone on par with flagships have ever been released.

Not exactly same capabilities as Android phones yet, but getting there fast with software updates: https://puri.sm/products/librem-5.

It's not anywhere near flagship speed though (only in boot time!)

It does not run on top of java virtual machine, so it does not require huge resources like latest Android. See also how smooth first iPhone with 256 MB RAM was.

HN may be larger than 4000 people, but it feels like a disturbingly large portion of the HN community seems to be in favor of anti-owner and anti-privacy policies. Forced obsolescence, razor/blades business models, selling user "behavior" data, and out-right spying on individual communications all seem to be big moneymakers, and some significant portion of HN's audience is more about "IPO and get rich" than "hacking".

HN is large enough that it has many factions, the one you describe definitely exists, as does the 'bro' faction, the 'get rich quick' faction, the racists and the idiots. That doesn't mean that any of these factions are dominant, and besides that HN has many more lurkers than posters and I suspect that the division is not identical between those groups on either side of the lurker/contributor divide.

most people have never heard of Tor, but by now most non-techies are suspicious of tech. They've noticed that they're not in control, that it does weird things they don't want, that it spies on them, that it sneaks advertising in, that they're never sure if something is private, that they can't tell if something is real or a scam, or if a service is fine now but is going to turn into something harmful in a a few years.

so let's keep on screwing them over, I'm sure there will never be any consequences as we poison society

You nailed it. An increasing proportion of laymen distrust technology. They know they're being spied on and losing control over their devices.

People used to dislike computers because they're complicated (they still do), but now they dislike computers because they're actively user-hostile.

>Most people don't even use a VPN

Those that use a VPN for privacy are the "average consumer". Those, let's say more geeky, know that the VPN for privacy that are sold by lots of companies are a fallacy as using a VPN from home gives you zero extra privacy. It only moves the problem from your ISP to the VPN company, which likely isn't covered by the same laws. It is in almost all cases worse.

> This is literally something that NEVER crosses the mind of the average consumer.

I think it happens more than you think, but people view this as eating healthy and exercising - should do more about it, but the world makes it easier to eat poorly and do things that aren't exercise.

What would help is if there are people with the capability to help aligned with solutions.

You pay for it with your money, the loss of privacy is the scam that is enabled by the mass consumer's apathy and lack of knowledge.

I also want to own my device, not rent it from a manufacturer.

> You now have a computer that is 10,000 times faster than one you had 30 yrs ago at half the price.

Actually, I think Apple has caused the prices of pocket computers to go up in the last few years (relative to features). And many of these features, I could do without (I.E.: I don't need so many sensors on my daily phone, this is dangerous from a privacy point of view). They removed the physical keyboard though...

> And yes you pay for it with some loss of privacy.

Why? You can pay $1,000 for your pocket computer and they still won't let you be administrator of it in the name of your own protection.

To tell you the truth, I don't like where today's computer designs are going.

You're right; freedom of computing is a non-issue for most people.

What I don't agree upon is that "NOBODY" would want open platforms; there's probably a larger market for that than there was a personal computing market in the 70's. There's businesses like Raptor that sell fairly open workstations, and they simply wouldn't if there wasn't a market for it.

The main issue is the disconnect between engineers/programmers and users. If there's growing amount of people who won't use the products they build themselves, then the idea of a war on general computing might snowball into a self-fulfilling prophecy where average users no longer has access to general computing through normal consumer devices.

Raptor systems are not fairly open, they're fully open. Purism and to a lesser extent System76 could be classified as fairly open though.

Fair enough. My point is that there are open hardware available, and that there wouldn't be if there wasn't an actual market for it. :)

It doesn't cross their mind because they don't know and don't understand. Once it impacts them, will they know and once they research, will they understand. Do you want to wait around until the public understands? What do you think the world will look like if we just wait?

Imagine we applied your "disregard until it becomes a bigger issue" approach and ridiculed every warning as a "your group problem is not a problem". Look around you. How is that working out?

Climate change for one: "eh... scientists are worrying about things that aren't even a problem yet, we'll tackle it when it becomes a problem, if ever".

Great strategy

This is not even remotely "first world problem". This is a problem that deals with democracy, anti authoritarian and such.

> The reason why this product doesn't existing on the market is because because NOBODY (except the odd 4000 people on HN) wants this product. Most people don't even use a VPN or know what TOR is.

The general public wants it and even uses at times of mass protests and government censorship. They don't know the technical details but they do use it all over the world, albeit infrequently.

Numerous argumentative fallacies here.

* Nothing about "average consumer" was mentioned. * Speed and size aren't relevant to topics of ownership and trust. * People may pay with privacy, but it should be a consenting relationship. * 4000 > 0 * Whatever "most people" are into, there is yet a market for good VPN services, and people do use Tor.

I hope you enjoyed your exercise in hyperbole.

Your post is proof that HN is far more than 4000 ppl. You represent the average consumer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com