Android devices run a Google OS and report data to Google. Apple's privacy claims are not actually impressive when inspected, however Android is far, far worse when it comes to privacy violations. It doesn't really matter than the phone itself might be manufactured by a 3rd party. In fact, it could be worse; your data could be excessively leaked to both Samsung and Google, rather than merely Google.
This is such a bad argument, because for a functional modern smartphone (for non nerds) you need to get into bed with either Apple or Google.
The way out of this is not expecting consumers to install fdroid. It’s putting in place proper regulations to preserve privacy and security for EI societies.
> It’s putting in place proper regulations to preserve privacy and security
That ship sailed so long ago. Not only because national security demanded warrantless backdoors, but because our companies now control regulation. If Tim Cook or Elon Musk take issue with some pesky demands for open architecture or security audits, they complain to Trump and resolve it via EO. Any protest is already quashed. Phone owners who don't actively resist hold no leverage against their OEM.
Stuff like F-Droid and PostmarketOS is the solution to this particular problem - people just don't want to admit it. It's easier to give up essential liberty, purchase temporary safety, and demand that you deserve security along with it too. Too few people realize that personal freedom is a necessary precondition to personal safety.
Can you help me understand how I've broken the site guidelines? Both my comment and the parent's are good faith discussions cut along the same rhetoric this site has tolerated for years. None of the responses are even taking this into flamewar territory, it's a black-and-white pastiche of security versus obscurity.
> so we don't have to keep banning you
My account has five karma, Dan. One downside of uncommunicated permanent bans is that it precludes the leverage you ordinarily use to encourage reform.
> One downside of uncommunicated permanent bans is that it precludes the leverage you ordinarily use to encourage reform
I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying here. It seems simple to me though: if you'd stop breaking the site guidelines so repeatedly and badly then we'd be happy not to ban you again, and if you won't stop doing that, we have little choice.
I think it would be very reasonable to redefine the term monopoly (or "anti-competitiveness") so that it encompasses the closed technical platforms that dominate the 21st century.
Sure, but you can't do that legally without an act of congress, and the DOJ only (in theory) prosecutes when laws are broken. Redefining what a monopoly is doesn't really help in a courtroom.
