Is it possible to allow sideloading and keep users safe?

Answer is yes. But 'safety' is not the reason for the recent Google move.

It is a move taken in lockstep with EU's Chat Control and UK's Online Safety Act, and the proposed Kids Online Safety Act in the US. The common objective of all is total control of digital lives of citizens and allowing the government to snoop on all internet communication while not disabling end to end encryption. They need end to end encryption to lock out external adversaries (Russia China etc) but they need to see the contents of encrypted messages to monitor internal adversaries.

First step is blocking you from running any apps not allowed by Google/Apple.

Second step is putting in the systems to snoop on end to end encrypted communication apps on the endpoints, enabling intel agencies to detect thoughtcrime without exposing everyone's chats to Chinese/Russian intelligence. This will most likely be done by OSes recognizing the apps and extracting private keys on demand.

Last step is locking the bootloaders so you cannot have a phone which lacks the 'features' added in the second step.

Yeah, its just too temporally coincidental. They must all go to the same Thursday meetings. I wish Stallman/Doctorow hadnt been so right.

I wish Stallman wasn't so silent. For someone who cares so much about software freedom he hasn't said a damn thing about any of what's been going on these past few months with KOSA, the Online Safety Act, etc.

Do we need people to stand up and push back? Yes. Stallman? I would rather not. The man doesn’t hold influence outside of some of our community, and is toxic because of things he has said and done to the outside world. Just look up his definition of “child” and read that in context to his statement about sex and he is discredited to most people

I hadn't heard of anything he had said on the subject before your comment, so I did a quick search. I don't know if the following is about but one of many problematic views on the subject, or if after this change of mind his views on sex are all fine, but worth knowing that at least on one issue his opinion has improved:

> "Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it.

> "Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why."

https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_Septe...

(I do agree with your comment overall, anyway.)

If you look up his anti-glossary, the definition of child he uses is:

> Children: Humans up to age 12 or 13 are children. After that, they become adolescents or teenagers. Let's resist the practice of infantilizing teenagers, by not calling them "children".

Older than 13 is not a child. Man is using that statement. Even if you want to argue that he didn’t really mean it like that, which I disagree with, opponents would have a field day with that to discredit him

Oof embarrassed I didn't proofread that, but I was saying "That is what the man is saying in that statement".

Stallman is like Humpty Dumpty (""When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less") and that masks some of his terrible beliefs. Also in his clarification (I refuse to call that an apology) why aren't we questioning why he needed to be told that sex with minors is bad? Why did he lack the skills to look up anything about consent and child development before saying that he though sex with >= 13 year olds was ok?

Ah, damn. Thanks for the extra info. I was really hoping I'd be able to leave this comment thread forgetting that he had formerly had problematic views!

(To be clear, I mean I wish he didn't have problematic views any more, not that I wish you hadn't informed me.)

Speaking of typos, I think you mean <=13 not >=? As in, referring to the fact that he previously thought it was ok with kids of any age (vs having now changed his mind about younger children but still thinking it's OK for 13+)? Unless I'm either misunderstanding the situation with him, or am making my own mistake about sentence structure or > vs < logic in some way

Edit: on the subject of why would someone need to be told that it's bad, on that point I actually don't agree with you. Because while I don't think there's an excuse for needing to be told that raping someone is bad, I have known several people who had sexual experiences when they were children, that they considered to be consensual at the time and that as adults they looked back on as not being negative, and therefore their opinion was that if a child "consents"/wants it to happen, then it's morally OK.

Of those people who I've personally discussed it with, 100% have changed their opinion after learning how it can have terrible long term effects on some people regardless of their having believed they wanted it to happen at the time.

But I don't think it's necessarily intuitive that if a 12 year old believes they want to have sex with an adult it must be wrong, especially not if, like these people I've known, they themselves had that experience and were lucky enough not to suffer in the long term (at least I hope they're all still not suffering).

It's the fact that we know from looking at the big picture that it's likely to cause problems in a child's development that teaches us that actually we shouldn't consider a child saying "I want this" to count as consent. If anything it's unintuitive, since as a rule of thumb we should think that people, including children, should have agency over their own bodies - and we make an exception in this case, because enough data has shown that children consenting to sex does, far too often, lead to mental health problems, if not immediately then later in life.

(I think/hope I've been clear enough that nobody would read my comment and get the impression that I'm condoning adults having sex with children. If any of my wording does give that impression it's a mistake. Do not have sex with children, ever.)