[unethical_ban]

I take issue with the idea that openness and freedom to install arbitrary software cannot occur without strong safety mechanisms. Android/GrapheneOS/iOS have sandboxing and permissions systems that put most desktop OSes to shame. The base platform can control apps' access to every resource, and an app store can put its own caveats and reminders to users for what kind of access is needed for the functions of a given app.

[kuhsaft]

Sandboxing and permissions provide a different type of security than application signatures. Sandboxing can limit app capabilities, but it doesn't change the fact that you can accidentally grant a malicious application permissions.

Application signatures and developer identification bring a different kind of application security. It provides the security of societal legal systems and legal ramifications for malicious actors.

In the end, you still have the choice to trust the "system" or your own judgment.

[fsflover]

> but it doesn't change the fact that you can accidentally grant a malicious application permissions

Do you also support the nanny states that decide how you should be parenting your children? (The age verification etc.)

[handedness]

You have a consistent habit of posing complex questions in your rhetoric. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question

Please don't do that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[fsflover]

This is not really a complex question as much as it is an analogy demonstrating that allowing third parties to dictate how you live leads to a huge loss of your freedom with bad consequences on your independence and control. But you are right: I could say this in my above comment.