Comment by benry1 6 days ago
I understand the position, but I think that's a silly concern here. This is an app that stops you from using social media features that absolutely farm every bit of data out of you they possibly can.
Feels a bit like being afraid to install a smart lock on your front door, so instead you leave it unlocked all the time.
It does sound like we agree, but my main issue is the further shifting of the (for lack of a better word) overton window around when closed software is acceptable.
For all its flaws (and despite my general ire towards them), the FSF has done one thing really well over the years, and that's keep the conversation alive around open-source software (which, in turn, has landed us at what I consider to be a really good compromise of a ton of high-quality source-available software).
The FSF isn't pulling as hard as it used to for a variety of reasons, but I think it's important to keep the pressure on and in cases like this, it's really easy to take the stance that at least source-availability shouldn't be compromised on, since the app presumably needs very broad permissions and capabilities from the OS.
A lot of discussion is about the security of these devices (resistance to false open states). But most of the time the safety (false closed states) has even higher stakes associated to it. Having to wait because some api server is slow is annoying but can quickly become life threatening in a different context. Fail-Safe vs Fail-Secure is (imo) often overlooked and probably just as important as the actual implemented security.
I have been locked out of more than 1 airbnb due to lack of cell service not being able to get codes for locks, it is very annoying and dumb.
This is a bad take, as much as I don't use social media at this point, people need access to good tools to curb use, and in this case, "good" means "open."