Why do you think that she wouldn't have tried to commit suicide via another means if she didn't have access to a gun?
5,342 karma · joined October 15, 2007
Just because you don't have a problem with this practice doesn't mean it is without problems.
B) The developers could have said no. If my boss got a contract with a bank that said I had to track users against their will, I would turn it down.
The point is that the newspapers are bringing up a legitimate problem. It's not a "panic", it's a valid concern.
I personally would love if we had better systems in place to help people shift careers when they felt that their current one wasn't what they wanted. It seems to me that asking a 20 year old which career they are going to love for the next ~40 years is a bit absurd.
They are reporting on a problem that we keep creating. I don't see any problems with this.
Tell that to people who have been doxxed. Or people who have had their stalkers find them. Or people who have been arrested by oppressive governments...
The list goes on
A) The statements/arguments/facts in your comment are incorrect, but your conclusion is correct based on $something_else.
I don't want to vote up because if someone is factually wrong, or making their argument based on faulty logic, it can dilute a legitimate discussion. But can't deny that I have an emotional desire to vote it up.
B) The statements/arguments/facts in your comment are correct, but your conclusion is incorrect based on $something_else.
I don't want to vote up because someone can have and understand all the facts, but still be wrong. But I also want to encourage a healthy discourse with accurate facts.
C) Although I disagree with your overall conclusion, I think your argument is still worth considering.
I want to vote up, but also down
D) You are technically right, but you are being an asshole.
I want to encourage civil behavior, but if their argument has merit, I don't want to downvote.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: A simple up/down vote is a leaky abstraction. I'm not sure that adding more voting options is a good idea, but I'm also not convinced that a single up/down is good enough.
This also depends on the voting/commenting guidelines of the site you are on, obviously.
/thinking out loud
I won't say that it is a good option, as it clearly isn't. But at least they give you some control of your data. Apple doesn't really give you any.
Definitely not a multinational corporation who has lied to it's users in the past, and has compromised their privacy and security.
I trust companies who put their money where their mouth is, and provide me access to inspect the systems that they have built.
Yes, you can't ever really know for sure if there is a back door or not. There's no way to prove a negative. But blindly trusting someone who is clearly hiding something seems naive at best.
"We slowed down your battery to make your phone last longer"
Sticking by your ethics isn't about what you gain, it is about being honest and trustworthy.
Additionally, Google is absolutely bad, but that is just whataboutism. If Apple valued privacy as much as they say they do, they would take a stand. Lost profits are part of taking a stand.
I still don't see how that original statement is innacurrate.
B) Not dealing with 3rd party manufacturers seems unrelated to the discussion. Can you expand?
B) And? It doesn't matter how lightweight it is. It's still unnecessary.
They don't weight it high it enough. The fact that it took until 2018 until they did that for mobile is telling enough.
How do you know this to be true?
A) Not de-ranking sites that are large and slow
B) Asking them to run a bunch of unnecessary trackers (Google Analytics)
I've never used AMP, but it does sound like it is fast, and web-page bloat is indeed a problem. But adding another layer (which also just happens to make you more beholden to Google) isn't the right way to fix that problem, removing the bloated layers is.
If Google really cared about fixing the root of the problem, they would put the AMP icon next to sites that are already small and already load fast, and rank them higher, rather than creating a new platform.
In regards to phones:
Just because we don't have a good alternative doesn't make Apple a good one. It is a fact that we don't know what they do with your private data. You can't say that their system is the best if you don't actually know what it does. All you can do is guess.
https://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/systems + any open source os
That aside: Just because we have shitty foss offerings doesn't mean Apple has a good offering.
> No, but you can whine about stuff you're never ever going to get, or you can just pick the least problematic option available. Currently that's Apple.
A) Currently that is not Apple. There are many other systems that do a much better job of protecting your privacy that Apple.
B) I'll choose to whine about things that I'm "never going to get". I'm in the business of reality, not wishful thinking. Just because Apple is more convenient when it comes to privacy, doesn't mean it solves the privacy problem, and sweeping that lie under the rug doesn't make it any less of a lie.
That is my complaint. There are plenty of other operating systems where I can. The fact that Apple won't let me implies that they are hiding something.
> Android isn't really open source. They let you look at some unimportant parts of it, that's all. It's a token gesture at best, or deliberately deceptive at worst.
I agree, but this is whataboutism. Android being shitty doesn't give Apple the right to be shitty.
I'd say it's highly contestable, especially since we have no actual direct proof that they do value privacy. Additionally, I don't care about brand perception, I care about reality.
> Next even if the source was published there’s no way to know of the published source is what is in the phones they sell.
So because they ship a poor OS that doesn't let you manage and control your own system means that there's no way to tell? Interesting, considering that a lot of other hardware works that way....
> This is just as true of an AOSP or any open source phone unless you literally audit the source and compile the whole stack from source yourself.
A) So? What if I want to do that?
B) The point of open-sourcing everything isn't so that everyone can audit everything everytime. It's so that we can audit when we need to. I would never buy a car that doens't let me pop the hood if I wanted to make modifications, why can't the same be true for Apple's products?
> However at least we have Apple on record and accountable, and it seems like their actual commercial interests align with their stated policies.
Their commercial interests actually align to look like they care about privacy, while actually double-dipping. Additionally, they still cater to governments.
> Going with them seems like a reasonable risk to take, especially considering how poor we know for a fact most of their competition is in this regard.
I completely agree that their competition is awful, but that doesn't in any way mean that Apple is good.
In the end, none of what you said refutes my point: You are still reliant on Apple being honest.
How do you know that? Unless you have some special access to see the source, you are just taking their word on that.