[jmyeet]

People forget how we got here. Whatever your philosophical stance, history has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that giving most people complete control over their device has been an unmitigiated disaster.

Scams, stealing credentials, stealing money, botnets, viruses, losses of data, ransomware, etc etc etc.

What is better for most people is a locked down device like an iPad where each app has to be approved and they're incredibly sandboxed. 20 years ago we had people installing malware because a strange email promised them smiley face emojis.

When we transitioned from the single-user ODS-based Windows model (ie Win98/SE were the last of that line) to a multi-user restricted privilege model based on NT 3.0/3.5/4.0 (first as WinXP) it was meant to be better but privilege escalation was still too easy because of what users had become accustomed to doing and of what was needed to install software you downloaded.

Things like an App Store (on Mac and eventually on Windows) are actually a good thing. Signed apps are a good thing. Having to go out of your way to install unsigned apps is a good thing.

I really abhor "technical libertarians" because they never address these issues. It's all principle-based while ignoring reality, human nature and whether or not unfettered access gives users something they even need.

Also, other people pay the price. Where do you think these DDoS attacks come from? Compromised Windows PCs (primarily).

[autoexec]

> Whatever your philosophical stance, history has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that giving most people complete control over their device has been an unmitigiated disaster.

I'd argue that giving governments and corporations control over our devices has also been an unmitigiated disaster. You could say the same thing about any kind of freedom though couldn't you? Freedom is so dangerous after all. Look at all the problems it's caused. Giving up all of our freedoms would surely make the world better right?

[bigstrat2003]

People often misuse freedom. The answer to that is not to take freedom away, but to educate people on how to use their freedom, and only restrict those who have proven to be unable to handle it. Let's say your argument, that clueless users getting infected are an externality upon everyone else and thus they need to be locked down for everyone's good, is accurate (though I don't think it is). In that case, why should the majority of intelligent people be made to suffer because a minority can't handle the freedom? No, in that case the correct thing to do is to have a mechanism by which we identify people who are hurting others, and restrict them. Nobody would countenance the idea that because some people are irresponsible drivers, cars must therefore be unavailable and everyone pushed into using public transit. But that is the exact same logic people try to use to crack down on freedom of use for computers, even though they are nowhere near as dangerous as a car.

> I really abhor "technical libertarians"...

Well, I abhor those who try to take freedom away from people. So the feeling is mutual I guess.

[dfedbeef]

'Misusing freedom' is a funny concept.

[trumpdong]

What if the "clueless" users are 99.99% of the users?

[fartfeatures]

Why as an Apple user in the UK am I considered too dumb to use a 3rd party app store but if I were 30 miles away in France I would be considered intelligent enough to cope? Because this was never about my safety. It was about their 30% as correctly supposed above.

[trumpdong]

Why in the UK Billy is considered a civil engineer but if he were 30 miles away in France it would be considered illegal for him to sign off on a bridge design? Different places arrived at different consensuses.

[fartfeatures]

Either that or Apple don't want to lose their 30% until they are forced to, one jurisdiction at a time. I guess we all need to make our own inference as to which is more likely.