←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: 0.909s | source
Show context
kristov ◴[01 Sep 25 13:05 UTC] No.45092413[source]▶
I think the conversation needs to change from "can't run software of our choice" to "can't participate in society without an apple or google account". I have been living with a de-googled android phone for a number of years, and it is getting harder and harder, while at the same time operating without certain "apps" is becoming more difficult.

For example, by bank (abn amro) still allows online banking on desktop via a physical auth device, but they are actively pushing for login only via their app. I called their support line for a lost card, and had to go through to second level support because I didn't have the app. If they get their way, eventually an apple or google account will be mandatory to have a bank account with them.

My kid goes to a school that outsourced all communication via an app. They have a web version, but it's barely usable. The app doesn't run without certain google libs installed. Again, to participate in school communication about my kid effectively requires an apple or google account.

I feel like the conversation we should be having is that we are sleepwalking into a world where to participate in society you must have an account with either apple or google. If you decide you don't want a relationship with either of those companies you will be extremely disadvantaged.

replies(33): >>45092481 #>>45092502 #>>45092525 #>>45092559 #>>45092576 #>>45092623 #>>45092669 #>>45092781 #>>45092939 #>>45092947 #>>45093038 #>>45093048 #>>45093123 #>>45093260 #>>45093421 #>>45093478 #>>45093537 #>>45093699 #>>45093704 #>>45094027 #>>45095844 #>>45096340 #>>45096654 #>>45097801 #>>45098763 #>>45099066 #>>45100986 #>>45102151 #>>45102555 #>>45103765 #>>45103863 #>>45104157 #>>45105475 #
shawabawa3 ◴[01 Sep 25 13:15 UTC] No.45092481[source]▶
> If you decide you don't want a relationship with either of those companies you will be extremely disadvantaged.

Even more worrying is the inverse of this - if Google and/or Apple decide for whatever reason they don't want a relationship with you (aka they ban you for no reason) - you are completely screwed

replies(9): >>45093014 #>>45095288 #>>45098792 #>>45098985 #>>45099237 #>>45099277 #>>45100309 #>>45101066 #>>45102640 #
abustamam ◴[01 Sep 25 14:42 UTC] No.45093014[source]▶
Even if they ban you for a reason, you're screwed. Granted, the ban may have been warranted, but you're essentially put into a societal prison with no due process or recourse.
replies(4): >>45093165 #>>45093707 #>>45095824 #>>45103483 #
isaacremuant ◴[01 Sep 25 19:29 UTC] No.45095824[source]▶
Let's hope people remember this and don't cheer the precedent when it's set against "undesirable" like it was with Alex Jones.

It always starts like that.

replies(2): >>45103653 #>>45164221 #
abustamam ◴[02 Sep 25 14:33 UTC] No.45103653[source]▶
Can you explain a bit more? As far as I was aware, Alex Jones was found guilty by a court of law.

I didn't really follow his case or anything about him though. Did he get banned from Google/Apple for no reason?

replies(1): >>45109645 #
isaacremuant ◴[02 Sep 25 21:57 UTC] No.45109645[source]▶
He was a high profile case of social media coordinated banning. Not just one platform but many and it wasn't about court orders at the time but simply the vague "policy" which we know gets applied selectively.

The particularly interesting thing was that the sentiment of unpersoning someone online and "one service banning you" being a good reason for others to do so, was used by politicians later on to suggest more proactive unpersoning of different government critics which, they obviously called conspiracy theorists. Obviously different politicians call for the ban of people from opposing political parties, so it's not something about a specific party or political compass quadrant, as much as people want it to be.

This was sometime after Trump's election, when the "all out war" on the US political landscape was happening.

You could probably find numerous less extreme and easier to defend cases, where people get banned from one or many linked services, with no recourse but the Jones one was one of or maybe the first high profile one across several sites.

It's very easy to think that these powers will only be used at someone we dislike or find politically abhorrent but it will always point back to us, the moment we are the nuisance, no matter if it's because we are against the new freedom (TM) war or "save the children" civil encroachment.

replies(1): >>45112023 #
1. abustamam ◴[03 Sep 25 03:35 UTC] No.45112023[source]▶
I would argue that social media banning is much different than Google/Apple banning. If I got banned from Facebook or reddit or even HN then I'm not really missing out on much. Of course, for people who actually do business on these platforms, like Jones, then it sucks to lose a platform, but I don't think anyone has a fundamental right to post whatever they want on these platforms.

If I got banned from Google, then almost 20 years of emails, 1TB of files on Google Drive, are gone. Many of the services I use that use email as a second factor, I'd be locked out of. (And before you ask, yes, I use an authenticator whenever I can, but for some reason some services decide to still only let me use email as a second factor). If I forgot my password at any site, can't reset it. Not to mention that I can't use my Android phone out of the box without installing custom de-Googled firmware.

I suppose the same argument could be made that I don't have a fundamental right to use Gmails mail servers, but as I pointed out above, it is more than just an inconvenience, it could actively be harmful to my digital life, because Google has its hands on almost all things digital.

replies(2): >>45114014 #>>45132283 #
2. BlueTemplar ◴[03 Sep 25 10:04 UTC] No.45114014[source]▶
I don't understand : in my experience it's still much easier to set up another email account than to deal with authenticator requirements, where you might be forced to use Google's Authenticator ?
replies(1): >>45123538 #
3. abustamam ◴[04 Sep 25 04:19 UTC] No.45123538[source]▶
If Gmail blocks me from making an account, I could use Yahoo mail or whatever, for email. But Gmail is more than just email. It's an entire identity. I can't use an android phone out of the box without a Google account. I ~bought~ licensed some movies from YouTube and those would just go poof. All the sites I used Sign in With Google would essentially be lost to me since I can't use that Google account.

The logical answer might be to just not use Sign in with Google but some services don't even let you use username/PW, it's sign in with Google/apple/Github etc.

replies(1): >>45124915 #
4. BlueTemplar ◴[04 Sep 25 08:16 UTC] No.45124915{3}[source]▶
Well yes, but that's partially on you − I might understand your average person not being wary about these issues, but we're on Hacker News here, these issues have been discussed for decades.

The sites also shouldn't be 'lost', don't they have a way to register another kind of login from the same one ? And you can always make a new, platform-free account − better do that sooner than later !

Please name and shame the websites (like Advent of Code and Rebble) that only allow a login through platforms. And services that only allow Google Authenticator.

5. isaacremuant ◴[04 Sep 25 21:14 UTC] No.45132283[source]▶
You're missing the point. You get banned in coordination.

> I don't think anyone has a fundamental right to post whatever they want on these platforms.

You don't have a right to anything if you fall for the bullshit of "they are private companies".

These private companies exert tremendous power and are also an arm of the government when the government wants it. The government uses them to censor things and hides the hand. It was very obvious before different US elections and during covid policies authoritianismathon.

> I suppose the same argument could be made that I don't have a fundamental right to use Gmails mail servers, but as I pointed out above, it is more than just an inconvenience, it could actively be harmful to my digital life, because Google has its hands on almost all things digital.

So you get my point but want to hiper focus on your exact circumstances. There's no need. Think of the worst case scenario and fight to protect yourself and others from that. Don't support it when it's "the bad guy getting the stick".