There's a very easy way to achieve maximum freedom: punish people who take away other people's freedom. To achieve maximum freedom, the one freedom people must never be allowed to have is the freedom to take away other people's freedom. Google must be punished for every software module they wrote whose sole purpose is to make you less free.
They didn't make you less free. They protected your phone from scammers. On top of which, nobody twisted your arm and made you buy from them, you're free to change the phone any way you want, get the debugger out and change it. You have everything you need, it's your phone, change it any way you want; and they have the freedom to not help you.
Google makes it mandatory for your girlfriend's phone to have spyware on it. The spyware is made by Google. It doesn't protect you from spyware.
While we're talking about that, have you heard of Bright Data SDK? A lot of apps on the Play Store include it to monetize. What does it do? It uses your phone as a botnet node while the app is open, and pays the app developer. How is Google protecting you from spyware, again?
No they don't. They couldn't legally write software to hack into the Pentagon and launch nukes at North Korea. They couldn't legally write software that live streams your camera to them without your actual consent.
1. Stop requiring computers/phones for everything. Your 91 year old grandma isn't going to make her way through your super cool very intuitive 2FA magic link email confirmation system, and I don't WANT to make my way through your super cool very intuitive 2FA magic link email confirmation system.
2. teach the people who need to use computers, how to use them.
I never said anything about 2FA magic links? We can do much, much better via things like FaceID integrated passkeys, and probably further steps from there.
> Stop requiring computers/phones for everything.
Ah yes, that sounds straight forward. Let us know when you’ve deployed that to prod.
Plenty of developed countries limit the easy way to their citizenship to ius sanguinus, and if you aren't a descendant of a previous national, you have to pass stringent language and culture tests.
I don't think you would find a Lithuanian or Finnish language test quite so easy.
Did you miss Trump's plan to censor the internet except for party approved propaganda? It was on the front page here a few days ago. The propaganda site will be called freedom.gov.
Idk, I think a much more effective way to destroy the US would be to send armed gangs through the streets and have them kidnap people from their houses at random.
That would cause far more destruction than merely telling people you were doing that without actually doing it.
The people doing the arresting have no ID and wear masks, arrest people without any evidence, throw them in detention centers and then deny them their legal right to a bond hearing and instead detain them indefinitely. Even someone like you should understand, police are not the judges, they can arrest someone but detaining them for a long period of time requires ascertaining their legal status and offering a chance for bond. The judges also overwhelmingly ruled the same thing, while ICE is directly disobeying their legal orders. If they were law enforcement, they would be following the law not breaking it.
Arresting people solely on the basis of their skin color or having an accent is akin to kidnapping. How many legal residents and citizens are you comfortable with being arrested without a sound legal basis? My number is zero.
It always has been in America. Literally, the history of policing starts with armed gangs looking for escaped slaves, and never went away from those roots. You can see this in their "us or them" combative mentalities, their utter refusal to hold officers accountable even when obviously guilty, their tactics when governments try to impose rules on them, and everything else they do.
How are they not? They’re definitely armed, so only the “gang” part is questionable. Wikipedia says:
“A gang is a group or society of associates, friends, or members of a family with a defined leadership and internal organization that identifies with or claims control over territory in a community and engages, either individually or collectively, in illegal, and possibly violent, behavior, with such behavior often constituting a form of organized crime.”
I’d say that fits some law enforcement pretty well.
reply