Yes there are many commenters here who say that, but I bet if we could somehow take a poll they would not be the majority.
I don’t know when people started expecting everyone on a given site to share the same opinion, but it is tiring.
It's downright appalling that HN entertained these arguments against sideloading. No self-respecting software engineer can look at the centralized architecture of a billion-dollar software business and surmise that it wouldn't be used against them. The detractors against sideloading deliberately (or foolishly) ignored an outsized, glaringly obvious threat to their personal freedoms that was repeatedly emphasized by their opposition.
Oppression, censorship and surveillance are HN's just deserts.
In perhaps clearer terms: HN is not a monolith. There are a variety of opinions here and intense disagreement. It’s very difficult to claim that any particular position is supported by a majority of users, given the arguments that erupt on nearly every topic.
(Or perhaps you are claiming that 100% of a site’s users are responsible for every opinion that is aired on a site, even if they disagree with it.)
The common opinion is still harmful, and it's enabled the harms to scale to the point we see them today. For an analog in modern politics, look at minority opinions like "think of the children" or "unnamed terrorist threat" and their role in manufacturing consent for tyranny.
> Oppression, censorship and surveillance are HN's just deserts.
What is this if not an implication that a majority, or all, of HN users share this opinion and are thus responsible/deserving of the fallout?
Edit: Oppression, censorship and surveillance are not a hypothetical consequence. The "justness" might be debatable, but the existence of it is objective.
The thing is, wide parts of the population are extremely IT illiterate. The governments didn't act to protect them (say, by threatening the host countries of the scammers aka India in the case of the US or Turkey/Bulgaria/Romania in the case of Europe), so private companies had no other choice.
And hell even the best of us like Brian Krebs can fall victim to attacks [1].
I'm really out of ideas how we can reconcile the needs of the 99% vs the needs of the 1% without making life hell for the other group.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/security-journalist-brian-kr...
> so private companies had no other choice.
Because Microsoft has demonstrated how it's done on their platforms? Obviously governments, EU or otherwise, have quite serious tolerance for scams.