←back to thread

1525 points garyclarke27 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.216s | source
Show context
heinrichhartman ◴[] No.23221288[source]
This is the result of out-sourcing juristic work to private companies:

If we treat Android, Window, Twitter, Facebook, as public spaces/goods, then private companies should not have a say in what is allowed/not-allowed on their platforms. This is work for the courts and police to decide and enforce.

If we treat those platforms as private. Then we are playing in s/o's backyard. You are totally at their mercy. They have every right to kick you out if they don't like your face. It's their property. You are a guest.

I think we need constituted digital public spaces and platforms with:

- democratic footing (users are in charge)

- public ownership

- division of power (politicians =!= judges =!= police)

- effective policing

In such a system it would be for independent courts to decide which Apps can be distributed and which not. Those courts would be bound to a constitution/body of law, which applies to all parties a like.

Yes, this will be expensive. Yes, you will have to give up some privacy. But you will be a citizen in a society, and not a stranger playing in a backyard.

Maybe the current platforms can be coerced into a system which approximates the above. But I have my doubts. I hope in 200years people will have figured this out, and will look back to this age as the digital dark ages.

replies(17): >>23221309 #>>23221497 #>>23221572 #>>23221741 #>>23221897 #>>23222642 #>>23222646 #>>23222671 #>>23223166 #>>23223727 #>>23224123 #>>23224539 #>>23228931 #>>23229210 #>>23230754 #>>23231344 #>>23236648 #
scarface74 ◴[] No.23221572[source]
You really trust the US court system to be impartial?

Should Apple/Google be forced to carry pornographic apps? White supremacists apps? Apps that invade people’s privacy? Which government should hold this responsibility? Should we have an international committee deciding this?

replies(7): >>23221706 #>>23221717 #>>23221719 #>>23221975 #>>23222099 #>>23225584 #>>23229212 #
bzb3 ◴[] No.23221706[source]
Yes, as per https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23221497
replies(1): >>23221731 #
scarface74 ◴[] No.23221731[source]
They are all considered “natural monopolies”. They are also regulated on the municipal level. Do you now want each city to regulate apps? Why stop there? Why not regulate what console makers can sell? every physical store can sell?
replies(1): >>23221750 #
bzb3 ◴[] No.23221750[source]
In my country >90% of smartphone users have Android. Yes I would call that a monopoly. Yes I think monopolies should be regulated. Not at the city level since that's ridiculous and sounds like a strawman. That comment was just an example of monopolies that need to be regulated.
replies(1): >>23221917 #
scarface74 ◴[] No.23221917[source]
Isn’t the whole beauty of Android that it is “open” and that you can sideload apps and you are not beholden to a “walled garden”?
replies(1): >>23222238 #
falcolas ◴[] No.23222238[source]
As Epic found out, not if you want to remain on Google's good side. They were facing sanctions from Google due to their sideloading of Fortnight onto Android phones and tablets.
replies(1): >>23222390 #
scarface74 ◴[] No.23222390[source]
What “sanctions” were they facing? They were called out because their app was a security nightmare.

https://www.cnet.com/news/fortnites-battle-royale-with-andro...

replies(1): >>23233228 #
1. efreak ◴[] No.23233228[source]
My understanding is that the "vulnerability" here also exists on every computer or other device on which you download an installer to a public folder--any application can watch that folder and silently replace the file with another when the download completes. There's nothing special about that. Android has a secure internal storage area--but internal storage is often limited. It's gotten better, but my previous phone only had 8gb for both the OS and data to share.