HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

When Apple killed Flash, it killed Flash for you too.

Now if Facebook promotes division and misinformation... just because you don't log onto Facebook, doesn't mean it has no impact on your life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMChO0qNbkY vibes

⬐ southerntofu

To be fair, that's the only pro-users decision Apple made in the past two decades. It has led us to new problems with web specifications and JS engines becoming too large and centralized, but at the very least we've got source code and the RCEs are less obvious to find than they were with Flash.

Also, technically Adobe killed Flash, not Apple. Adobe could have liberated the technology at any point to address Apple's issue, or continued without iOS support. Adobe decided to pull the plug because they're a greedy evil corporation like any other and don't care that people depend on things or create cool stuff with those tools.

> If that's your kink, then Polaroid cameras and camcorders exist.

That sounds a bit like the Onion sketch "Google allows you to opt-out of tracking by moving to remote mountain village" [1].

This case proves that the criminal justice system works to protect your personal images, we just need a better way to be notified when it happens (the kind of action you would expect Apple to take if they cared, instead of "we continued to strengthen our vendor protocols")

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMChO0qNbkY

⬐ khuey

The story doesn't mention anything about any criminal charges.

The only reason they got caught is because they uploaded the pictures/videos to her Facebook. If they had sent them to a porn site instead they would have gotten away with it. The grandparent is largely correct, if sexually explicit photos/videos of you make it onto a digital device controlling their distribution is difficult at best.

Well, let's put it this way: "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."

You can stay away from Facebook and then feel really smug ten years from now when it eventually collapses. But until then, you'd have missed out on a lot of important things. The only winning move is to realize that you do not have a choice, and that the terms of service are just an illusion.

For the record, I think Facebook's existence is regrettable. But the notion that you have any ability, choice, freedom, right, or opportunity to opt out from it is laughable.

As for the idea of the social contract, I think you are actually spot on:

> Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority [...] in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order.

Individuals have:

[?] consented explicitly

[x] consented tacitly

[x] to surrender some of their freedoms

[x] to submit to the authority [Facebook]

[ ] in exchange for protection of their remaining rights

[x] in exchange for maintenance of the social order

In fact, it could even be argued that this de-facto state of affair ought to be made de-jure. Certainly, it is the case already today that many of my local government agencies are more active on Twitter or Facebook than they are over phone or e-mail. In fact, they rarely use e-mail for regulatory reasons. If someone is suicidal, has an extreme drinking problem, or holds extremist political beliefs, we consider this a transgression and rightfully lock them up/commit them to involuntary psychiatric care. Why is this not the case for all self-harmful behaviors?

Considering many employers etc. already want it, it doesn't seem far-fetched to consider people hermits for refusing to participate, just as we consider an individual defect for not owning a smartphone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMChO0qNbkY

So it's pretty safe to say this vid from The Onion made a few years ago has become reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMChO0qNbkY

What a time to be alive.

⬐ pdkl95

The Onion was also prescient about the end game for surveillance based companies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8c_m6U1f9o

(this video is especially interesting in light of Google's recent involvement in Chinese censorship)

⬐ mindcrash

Holy shit, thats a good one aswell. Bookmarked. Thanks!

"If you want to opt out that is fine. You can just toil in the hinterlands, and die young"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMChO0qNbkY

Seriously? You can't imagine why people might want to take advantage of modern technology while simultaneously wanting privacy protections?

Your argument reminds me of this Onion video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMChO0qNbkY

⬐ williamcotton

I can definitely imagine that people might want to take advantage of modern technology while simultaneously wanting privacy protections.

I just can't imagine why they think that relying on a private company is the proper course of action.

I can also definitely imagine why thinking that public infrastructure or using free or open source software and hardware will lead to actions that will actually make a difference towards securing privacy protections.