this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2025
2053 points (99.5% liked)

Microblog Memes

9017 readers
2997 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

I am not sure if enhanced (and force-fed) security features are the main problems here. Monopolies, spying and not having easily accessible alternatives (easy from the perspective of a more average user) are the main problems. Because google and apple are monopolies, most security critical apps like banking apps (that you unfortunately need now a days) don't support alternative OSs which also feedbacks the monopoly. Otherwise I am fine if some people opt for a phone that is basically a locked black box for them so long as there are other alternatives (including those which are still super secure/locked but does not spy).

It is much more crazy to me that you have to fight your device so that it does not sneakily do something that you don't want it to do (like install AI out of the blue or use data for mapping your habits). And most average users won't give this fight and that is what these companies really count on.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (15 children)

I think that, with the current state of OSes like Windows and Android, there should be some minimal amount of friction to enabling installation of non-vetted apps. Maybe some switch that can't be enabled accidentally, or without understanding that there's risk involved (or at least a switch that can be disabled and password protected) for the sake of children or the elderly.

On the other hand, though, an OS should be built with enough security and sandboxing that no single application can brick your entire device without at least tapping through and giving it a ton of permissions; which means that the only remaining risk to the end user would be access to disinformation or other harmful content, or the risk of personal information exfiltration (i.e. phishing). At that point, a simple block list (or even just an allow list) maintained by a trusted guardian or third party would be sufficient to keep children or the elderly from harmful content, and whoops we've just invented the internet again.

I am once again begging for Boot2Gecko to become a thing.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 21 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Yeah I can accept some kind of "hey we can't verify this, you are on your own if you want to install" warning message, but if it prevents me then I don't want it.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›