←back to thread

We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

(hugotunius.se)
2071 points K0nserv | 5 comments | 31 Aug 25 21:46 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
idle_zealot ◴[01 Sep 25 00:21 UTC] No.45088298[source]▶
This makes the point that the real battle we should be fighting is not for control of Android/iOS, but the ability to run other operating systems on phones. That would be great, but as the author acknowledges, building those alternatives is basically impossible. Even assuming that building a solid alternative is feasible, though, I don't think their point stands. Generally I'm not keen on legislatively forcing a developer to alter their software, but let's be real: Google and Apple have more power than most nations. I'm all for mandating that they change their code to be less user-hostile, for the same reason I prefer democracy to autocracy. Any party with power enough to impact millions of lives needs to be accountable to those it affects. I don't see the point of distinguishing between government and private corporation when that corporation is on the same scale of power and influence.
replies(14): >>45088317 #>>45088413 #>>45088437 #>>45088617 #>>45088634 #>>45088767 #>>45088805 #>>45088812 #>>45089073 #>>45089349 #>>45089473 #>>45089554 #>>45089569 #>>45091038 #
abtinf[dead post] ◴[01 Sep 25 00:25 UTC] No.45088317[source]▶
[flagged]
1. junon ◴[01 Sep 25 00:35 UTC] No.45088362[source]▶
That's a reductio ad absurdum conclusion.

Both lobby for and are in major political cahoots with many governmental bodies worldwide. They lobby like crazy, and can defend just about any lawsuit that comes their way - including dodging congressional hearings, selectively adhering to laws other companies cannot afford to skip, etc.

But I think you knew that. Being argumentative with the general point OP was making doesn't solve anything and just defends multinationals when they shouldn't be defended.

replies(1): >>45089484 #
2. abtinf ◴[01 Sep 25 04:32 UTC] No.45089484[source]▶
Every point you raised is in fact evidence for how they are weaker than governments.
replies(1): >>45090849 #
3. junon ◴[01 Sep 25 08:50 UTC] No.45090849[source]▶
It depends on how you quantify it, which isn't really possible and isn't even the point of the comment.

It really feels like you're being intentionally obtuse here. The point was that they seem to be impervious to many governments. That would be having, by at least some measure, more power than the government.

They weren't meaning they were literal comparisons of amounts of power.

replies(1): >>45092810 #
4. abtinf ◴[01 Sep 25 14:09 UTC] No.45092810{3}[source]▶
You’re upset because I won’t help you evade the fact that you are intentionally conflating two distinct concepts:

“Power” meaning the infliction violence and physical coercion with the force of law.

“Power” meaning the ability to make money by designing products and services people voluntary trade for.

This is always an intentional confusion intended to deceive and manipulate.

See also https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/economic_power_vs_politic...

replies(1): >>45092894 #
5. junon ◴[01 Sep 25 14:22 UTC] No.45092894{4}[source]▶
Yep you're right then. :)