Hacker News Reader

Comment by malermeister | Hacker News Reader

> Do you really want to live in a world where a tiny number of mega corporations, some of them run by lunatics, are allowed to have full control over devices you own AND all of your personal data?

Long story short, yes, a lot of people here do. It's the temporarily embarrassed millionaire syndrome that drives a lot of American politics, but in a tech context.

They believe that one day, they could be the lunatics running the mega corporation and exploiting users, and when that day comes, they don't want the EU to stand in their way.

View on HN

But still: How on earth could a nerd/hacker/tech enthusiast have the position of "I should not be in charge to decide what Software I install on hardware I own"?

Do these people really think that Apple knows what's best for them and has the sole right to decide? Do these people not trust themselves at all to know what Apps they want to install, what music they want to listen to, and what content is safe for them to read?

This just doesn't make sense to me.

The enthusiasm is for money and power. The 'enthusiasm' broadcasted over "hacking", "autonomy", "libertarianism", etc, is virtue signaling because of the kind of message board HN is 'supposed' to be.

I agree on the virtue signaling. I'd prefer to call it "trying to find common values", but yeah, it does fit the definition.

But I disagree about the "supposed to be".

It genuinely strikes me as completely illogical.

Albeit used much less in those circles around here in the EU, I had my fair share of contact with hackers/nerds/geeks/devs/etc that use MacBooks. When asked why they accept working with such a locked down platform the response I got most of the time was "it's BSD, I can run and compile whatever I want".

But that's not the case when it comes to the IPhone. Here right now as an owner you don't have much rights on something that you own.

I sure can see that you simply can be indifferent on that - such as one might have the position to be happy to have an "open" platform on the desk, and a walled garden in their hands. But being in OPPOSITION of having those who also want the platform in their hand to be open? I still find that very counter-intuitive and strange.

Most of the discussions here are about logical subjects, and positions typically appear to me to be very rational.

But the comments I often see here whenever "EU tries to enforce data privacy laws and enforce free market access" comes up don't appear to be very rational to me. For what I would call the "hacker community" over here in the EU, even when using the broadest possible definition of the word, appears to be cheering in unison whenever - often with the help of that community - another goal post has been moved when it comes to regaining some personal rights.

For me it's now two years that Apple again and again is rejecting to accept an Open Source community app to its store due to it on initial sign-up requiring a connection to an OAuth2 provider in a dedicated browser Windows. Once. As this is a requirement from the OAuth2 provider. Apple is rejecting this again and again on the sole comment that this dedicated browser window opening up once after installation would be a bad UI experience. All while 100,0% of the users of the app are just happy with that, and that the vast majority of apps on the App Store using for example Gitlab as an OAuth2 provider have the exact same flow.

It's two years now that the Android users are happy, and the iOS users have to live with installing one "preflight" version after another.

So yeah, there you have it: Of course I was looking forward to simply providing the app via Sideloading or an alternative App-Store, but by simply ignoring the laws the EU has made with a "come, fine me" attitude, I probably can wait another year before the EU has success enforcing its laws. It's hard for me to grasp that anyone in the developer community could justify Apple blocking both sideloading Apps and installing them via third party app-stores, no matter how much fan posters of any giving company they may pinned to their wall...

I don't understand the dissonance myself, though as I'm neither a developer nor a "hacker" of any sort that might affect my opinion. The desktop computer is the most open computing platform ever developed and the first to reach the masses, and the way things are looking it will be the last; yet this is something the libertarian free-market capitalists here cheer? They complain about tech illiteracy but want to keep everyone in a state of learned helplessness? I just don't get it.

In another thread about Apple's compliance with the DMA, people were arguing that the locked down nature is why they bought from Apple. They believe it's beneficial.

I guess it's the same kind of person who, in other circumstances, might prefer an authoritarian government that would restrict their rights (e.g. women who are against women having the right to vote); they genuinely want it because they think it produces better outcomes than something totally free, and they don't value their own freedoms as much as someone more independent and libertarian would.

I think your comparison with women's right to vote is spot-on. But in most parts of the world there has been and still is progress.

But thinking about it, the US moving backward on this subject, too - a lot of people now believe it's OK to take control over someone else's body. And there are women who actually are against reproductive rights for women.

All of this feels so strange to me. Since the IBM PC the industry got a huge boost due to the PC being an open platform. Back then outside of IBM it was pretty much unimageable that anyone would say "don't open up that platform, we prefer a walled garden". But now, 40 years later, the lessons appear to be forgotten.

Maybe those who have this belief that a locked down computer platform is a good idea are young, and due to there not being computer history lessons in schools simply have not experienced those decades themselves?

I am not sure how much those groups / beliefs really overlap, but I have the feeling that those who want an almighty Apple might be the same people who want a "lean" government. Which means that they have more trust in a corporation where they don't have any say compared to a government that they can (more or less these days) elect themselves.

That again might be due to potentially missing history lessons. Maybe people simply don't know what Microsoft back then tried on dirty tricks to destroy the open source movement, and now is trying again trying to force you to use Edge, just as Apple wants to force you to use Safari. Again I would expect that people in this forum agree that it will be beneficial for humanity that there are multiple browser engines available. I mean - I guess nobody here would find it attractive to only have two different car manufacturers, who also exercise full control over what you can do with the car that you OWN.

Just to give another example: Pretty much everyone watches porn. Do they find it attractive that Apple is deciding on what on is OK and what is not? I know that people in the US are much more prudish and inhibited compared to most EU countries. But EU magazines got banned from the app store due to showing women's breasts in a medical context etc. Again I don't understand why people even trust a corporation to know better about their sexuality then themselves.

Humans are weird, and only to be enjoyed in small dosages. But I expected that people who prefer free markets, choice and empowerment of the users to be the fast majority on this forum. But that clearly is not the case.

Weird.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com