←back to thread

Is it possible to allow sideloading and keep users safe?

(shkspr.mobi)
205 points ColinWright | 2 comments | 30 Aug 25 12:03 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
enriquto ◴[30 Aug 25 12:59 UTC] No.45074254[source]▶
> Are you allowed to run whatever computer program you want on the hardware you own?

Yes. It is a basic human right.

> This is a question where freedom, practicality, and reality all collide into a mess.

No; it isn't. The answer is clear and not messy. If you are not allowed to run programs of your choice, then it is not your hardware. Practicality and "reality" (whatever that means) are irrelevant issues here.

Maybe you prefer to use hardware that is not yours, but that is a different question.

replies(7): >>45074265 #>>45074374 #>>45074385 #>>45074396 #>>45074529 #>>45074536 #>>45074595 #
rafram ◴[30 Aug 25 13:15 UTC] No.45074374[source]▶
That’s a great ideal, but Android is used both by sophisticated users who want a phone they can tinker with and the tech-illiterate grandparents of the world, who will never have a legitimate reason to install an app outside the Play Store, and who would never attempt to do that unless they were being guided by a scammer.
replies(4): >>45074413 #>>45074437 #>>45074462 #>>45074780 #
gumby271 ◴[30 Aug 25 13:22 UTC] No.45074437[source]▶
Then why not lock down their devices. Why aren't people using the parental controls on their parents phones to lock it down and own in on their behalf? I don't understand this idea that because there are some people vulnerable to scams that we all have to give up control to Apple and Google. The option to move the trust and ownership to another party is useful, but it doesn't have to be just those two parties as options.
replies(1): >>45074501 #
rafram ◴[30 Aug 25 13:28 UTC] No.45074501[source]▶
Not everyone has children. Not everyone has children who they remain in contact with. Not everyone has children who are tech-adept enough to do that. Not everyone has children who are less vulnerable than themselves.
replies(1): >>45074632 #
gumby271 ◴[30 Aug 25 13:41 UTC] No.45074632[source]▶
Well maybe let's start small and cover the people that do first, just to see how that goes. Instead we're starting with all people on the planet, and it will be declared a success because the metrics will say it was, there's no rolling this back.

And it doesn't have to be children of parents, that's just the common example that's brought out every time this comes up.

replies(1): >>45074762 #
snowe2010 ◴[30 Aug 25 14:00 UTC] No.45074762[source]▶
We literally did start with that… that’s the current situation, everyone has parental toggles and yet millions of people get scammed for billions of dollars a year. You’re acting like we (and these massive corporations) haven’t been trying for decades at this point. And you’re saying we shouldn’t be trying more stuff, we should just stop and give up and let innocent people get scammed because you want to be able to run whatever on your phone.
replies(2): >>45074871 #>>45077540 #
1. dns_snek ◴[30 Aug 25 19:58 UTC] No.45077540{4}[source]▶
> let innocent people get scammed because you want to be able to run whatever on your phone.

As always it comes down to insulting and emotionally guilt tripping people to screw them out of their freedoms and of course there's never even a shred of evidence to support any of these incredible claims. You're laying it on too thick, give us a break.

> You’re acting like we (and these massive corporations) haven’t been trying for decades at this point.

You're acting like this would make a dent in the total number of people who are scammed every day.

And it just so happens that the only acceptable remedy necessitates infringing on billions of people's personal freedoms which will, incidentally, secure trillions in future profits for these corporations. All that for a temporary speed bump that would only affect a minority of scammers who would adapt in a month.

replies(1): >>45112515 #
2. snowe2010 ◴[03 Sep 25 05:33 UTC] No.45112515[source]▶
> You're laying it on too thick, give us a break.

Says the person that thinks they are losing personal freedoms when a company makes a product change and they just don’t want to bother switching to a different product.

Buy a different phone. This isn’t affecting your personal freedom.

And yes, it does affect the number of scams that people fall for, as evidenced by iOS’s hiding of links in scam messages. It forced scammers to try and get the scammee to jump through several more hoops just to be able to open links. Immediate drop in scams.

There are tons of things to be done. None of them are affecting your freedom. Buy a different phone.