[idle_zealot]

I strongly disagree. Personal computers are here to stay, and will only become more integrated into daily life due to the conveniences they afford. The fight now isn’t to keep computing out of daily life. Rather, we ought to be fighting to ensure that people have control over the computers in their lives.

There are two ways this ends up:

The future where everyone has to carry around a black box computing device controlled by its manufacturer and the privileged creators of the apps you’ve been allowed or compelled to install on it. The present state of iPads/iPhones and to a lesser extent Android phones make this future feel incredibly close.

But the future where everyone carries around an incredible communication and calculation tool that acts as an agent for them and expands every individual’s capabilities feels only just slightly out of reach.

The line dividing the two futures is thin and technical in nature. This leaves us with a tricky situation where most people wouldn’t be able to distinguish which they’re headed towards, or even which they’re living in. All I can do is hope that either legal tides go my way and grant users control over their computers (phones) by force, or that somehow tech literacy rises and people demand control.

[Jimmy]

I don’t really disagree. I’m not a luddite and I don’t advocate for turning off the internet. Computers are certainly here to stay. It’s an extremely complex issue, and I don’t have all the answers, or even know how to phrase all the questions.

I do think society needs to take a proactive role in deciding how it wants to interact with technology though. There’s a certain laissez faire, almost defeatist attitude that you see from a lot of the tech crowd, that goes something like “technology will do what it does, and it will change our lives how it sees fit, and we are powerless to stop it.” But if that was the case, we couldn’t have gun control laws, or environmental protection laws, or restrictions on nuclear technology. Technology may continue to develop, but it’s still up to us how we choose to use it.

[idle_zealot]

> technology will do what it does, and it will change our lives how it sees fit, and we are powerless to stop it

I too see this attitude from technical people. To be clear: I do not hold it. Like you say, I favor regulation in the vein of gun control, environmental protection, etc. Left alone the tech market will consolidate and rob users of as much power as possible; it is simply the most profitable way of doing business.

To be more specific: I am a proponent of bills like S.2710 - Open App Markets Act (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/271...), which among other things requires operating systems to "... allow and provide readily accessible means for users of that operating system to ... install third-party apps or app stores through means other than its app store". Though I would also want additional provisions, like not allowing OSes to reserve special privileges for first-party or blessed third-party apps, eg iOS restricts third-party apps from running JIT code, preventing browser competition on the platform.

[jokethrowaway]

It's not technology, it's the people.

The problem is that people want short term gain and don't see the long term loss.

Regulation won't happen for technology, the government doesn't really have an incentive.

They are already spying on anyone so they don't need anything else. Gun control regulations are great to make people more reliant on the government and environmental protection laws are great for charging extra taxes; what would a "less technology" regulation accomplish? Nothing, it would be counterproductive.

The government wants you to ping you every phone cell you go nearby to.

[pessimizer]

There's absolutely nothing technical about this. It's entirely political, there's no technology that needs to be developed for this. All you have to do is create laws (or allow monopolies and cartels to impose "standards") that require people to carry their cellphones at all times. Make physical doorknobs illegal (as a security threat, and lack of accessibility for the disabled.) Done.

You don't even need cellphones. Just issue people hard to forge documentation and set up checkpoints. It's the difference between a fence and a shock collar.

Your dream seems to be to set up the infrastructure for universal command and control, then expect it to choose to regulate itself.

[idle_zealot]

> Your dream seems to be to set up the infrastructure for universal command and control, then expect it to choose to regulate itself.

I don't think I said anything of the sort. Just because something is electronic doesn't mean it's centralized and restrictive. My dream is one where technology is an empowering tool accessible to anyone and I'm all for regulation to prevent monopolies or cartels from imposing self-serving "standards" that block out competitors and force people into walled gardens. You seem mostly concerned about authoritarianism. I propose that so long as users are in control of their computers then computer ownership will have a net-positive impact on general freedom. If users do not control their computers then they will have a net-negative impact on freedom. So the crucial aspect is not whether or not phones/computers become required for daily life, but whether users have control over them.

[xg15]

I applaud that goal, but currently I see no trend pointing in that direction - on the contrary, the rise of highly locked down smartphones and IoT devices has shown to everyone interested just how much control you can take away from users without serious complaints, let alone actions.

Even moreso, there are a growing number of stakeholders and even entire business segments, which require locked-down devices for their activities: The entire business of streaming services only works because they get to place an opaque black box in users' homes and can dictate arbitrary rules and constraints for playback.

The entire app ecosystem is only economically viable because the devices make it impossible (iOS) or really inconvenient (Android) to install apps without paying for them. Also, the devices give the user no way to modify the apps, so developers can implement whatever hostile logic they want and users have to put up with it. The ability to do that is a major appeal locked down platforms have for businesses.

(IMO, the imagination of far too many people in the industry is already running wild with all the kinds of crazy rules, restrictions and "business models" you can implement on locked down devices.)

I think we should reverse this trend and install some actual computer literacy in larger parts of society before we make computers mandatory for everyday life - otherwise, the whole thing will end in a dystopia.

[OJFord]

I think you need to define personal compute as including mobile phones/tables for that to be true. I've had several even highly technical colleagues with no non-work 'computer' - they use an iPad or whatever, because that's sufficient for their non-work use of one.

[idle_zealot]

I didn’t realize that my usage if the term was unclear, but to clarify: an iPad is a personal computer. A smartphone is a personal computer. Even modern game consoles are personal computers. They’re all general-purpose computers owned by an individual. However, they have software locks placed on them that prevent their owners from controlling them. In the post above when I’m talking about personal computers that we carry around I primarily mean phones. I will update the post to clarify.