this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2025
187 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

3819 readers
559 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.


Post guidelines

[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip


Icon attribution | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

How EU digital identity rules and Google's restrictive policies threaten the future of privacy-focused Android operating systems like GrapheneOS.

Archived version: https://archive.is/20250810234024/https://www.forbes.com/sites/federicoguerrini/2025/08/10/whos-afraid-of-privacy-focused-smartphones/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FreedomAdvocate 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

🤣 and I see we have another person who doesn’t understand why government overreach is a problem because they’re too busy saying “govern me harder daddy” and using terms like “anti-consumer” without knowing what they mean.

I’m sure you’re all for the EU getting access to all encrypted messaging systems too as long as they say it’s to stop the “far right”, right?

[–] The_Grinch@hexbear.net 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don't know why you think corporations aren't effectively micro-governments themselves, ones that don't even put on the show of democracy, beholden to essentially no one but their shareholders.

[–] FreedomAdvocate -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The difference is that products that corporations make don’t have to be like government run products. They don’t have to be for everyone. They don’t have to accept all payment methods. They don’t need to work inter-operably with other products. I'm ok with corporations being their own "micro-governments" and being beholden only to their shareholders, because that's what I expect of them.

They can be for a very small subset of people, they can have features locked behind paywalls, they can have vendor lock in, they can only accept specific payment methods. If you don’t like what they do, you don’t have to use them. You think you’re entitled to use them how you want though, which is wrong.

The problem that people like you don’t understand is that the EU has started mandating that companies do things that are against their own interests, that actively harm them, and threatening them with gigantic fines if they don’t fall in line despite not doing anything illegal or wrong. People like you celebrate them strong arming companies this way because you didn’t like something that company did at moral level, when morals have no place in the conversation. Calling it "anti-consumer" just means "I as a consumer don't like it" in most cases, not that it's actually "anti-consumer" by definition.

Now the strong arming of foreign companies has shifted directly into surveillance and authoritarianism, and people like you don't really have a leg to stand on when arguing against it because it's what they've been doing all along and you congratulated them in doing so.

[–] Wakmrow@hexbear.net 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] FreedomAdvocate 1 points 17 hours ago

Great input, thanks for that.