Most active commenters
  • lukan(5)
  • jacquesm(4)

←back to thread

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

(hugotunius.se)
2071 points K0nserv | 13 comments | 31 Aug 25 21:46 UTC | HN request time: 0.453s | source | bottom
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 #
jacquesm ◴[01 Sep 25 02:02 UTC] No.45088767[source]▶
> Google and Apple have more power than most nations.

And that is what is wrong here. Even the smallest nation should be far more powerful than the largest corporation. But corporations are now more powerful than most nations, including some really big ones. So the only way to solve this is to for an umbrella for nations that offsets the power that these corporations have.

The first thing you notice when you arrive at Brussels airport is the absolute barrage of Google advertising that tries to convince you that Google is doing everything they can to play by the rules. When it is of course doing the exact opposite. So at least Google seems to realize that smaller nations banding together wield power. But they will never wield it as effectively as a company can, so we still have many problems.

replies(3): >>45088835 #>>45089434 #>>45089608 #
lukan ◴[01 Sep 25 02:16 UTC] No.45088835[source]▶
"And that is what is wrong here. Even the smallest nation should be far more powerful than the largest corporation"

Since nations can be really small, I don't agree.

replies(2): >>45088895 #>>45089462 #
1. cyphar ◴[01 Sep 25 04:28 UTC] No.45089462[source]▶
Even the smallest nations have the legal right to permanently incarcerate, strip you of your assets or even murder you if you are in their sphere of influence. I would hope you'd agree those are not powers that we should grant to large corporations...

I think it's shocking how many people Google can affect through its search algorithms (more than any nation on Earth) and yet there is no democratic system to hold them accountable.

replies(2): >>45089647 #>>45089757 #
2. yardstick ◴[01 Sep 25 05:11 UTC] No.45089647[source]▶
Kill, not murder. If the country ends your life they are doing it under their authority, not outside their authority.
replies(2): >>45091591 #>>45091657 #
3. fluoridation ◴[01 Sep 25 05:35 UTC] No.45089757[source]▶
>Even the smallest nations have the legal right to permanently incarcerate, strip you of your assets or even murder you if you are in their sphere of influence.

A nation that did that would be able to do that exactly once before everyone decides to never do business with it ever again, which they can afford to do because it's such a small market. Exercising arbitrary power is not the trump card you think it is. Hell, even a tiny nation with reasonable but annoying (from the point of view of a corporation) laws may not be worth it to deal with.

replies(3): >>45090026 #>>45091599 #>>45094827 #
4. jacquesm ◴[01 Sep 25 06:28 UTC] No.45090026[source]▶
Singapore.
5. lukan ◴[01 Sep 25 10:53 UTC] No.45091591[source]▶
So for example the Nazis did not murder people? It was under their authority after all ...

Point being, also states can do murder.

6. lukan ◴[01 Sep 25 10:55 UTC] No.45091599[source]▶
Or more. If some small state decides to officially murder a US tourist while he never broke a local law, I do believe the public outcry would make the US government do more than just stop doing buisness.
replies(2): >>45091778 #>>45092949 #
7. jacquesm ◴[01 Sep 25 11:04 UTC] No.45091657[source]▶
Context is everything. There are plenty of instances of countries murdering people. Authority does not define murder, ethics does.
8. tremon ◴[01 Sep 25 11:22 UTC] No.45091778{3}[source]▶
Are you sure?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashog...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Omar_Assad

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Sayfollah_Musallet

replies(1): >>45092951 #
9. ◴[01 Sep 25 14:31 UTC] No.45092949{3}[source]▶
10. lukan ◴[01 Sep 25 14:32 UTC] No.45092951{4}[source]▶
Well, Saudi Arabia and Israel are not "some small state".
replies(1): >>45093450 #
11. jacquesm ◴[01 Sep 25 15:23 UTC] No.45093450{5}[source]▶
Ah, the well known true small state fallacy. Should have seen that one coming I guess.
replies(1): >>45096240 #
12. inetknght ◴[01 Sep 25 17:37 UTC] No.45094827[source]▶
> > Even the smallest nations have the legal right to permanently incarcerate, strip you of your assets or even murder you if you are in their sphere of influence.

> A nation that did that would be able to do that exactly once before everyone decides to never do business with it ever again

US CBP and ICE would like a word with you.

13. lukan ◴[01 Sep 25 20:16 UTC] No.45096240{6}[source]▶
Seriously?

True "some small state fallacy" please. And here I believe it matters if we are talking about some small state, or a small state that happens to be a close ally with lots of influence for various reasons.