Please sire... bless this unenlightened teenager with 10k paragraphs in broken English defending censorship.
Oh. My. Gods... None native English speaker 54yo dyslexic me, who never really had to practice the language, have a broken English... Who would have thought?
Well, I'll console myself knowing that, at least, I understand that disagreeing with a stupid claim do not mean that I defend what this claim attacks.
I don't think it's disingenuous at all to conclude you're on the otherside,
And yet it is.
If I say that, "no, rape isn't a crime against humanity", this doesn't mean that I support rape.
If I say that, "no, loving 18yo girls with D cup isn't ephebophilia", this doesn't mean that I support p*d*shit.
In both case it just mean that the person I talk to do not understand what "crime against humanity" or "ephebophilia" are, period.
you've stated you don't believe this is restricting freedom
And it isn't. You're still totally free to play the games on a none Android platform; hell, so far you'll even still be free to play them on an Android platform, even next year once the change will apply.
It's, yet at most, a limitation of your convenience, not of your freedom.
and also that it will improve security,
And, since you've read Google announcement, at least when you saw the link on the previous page, you know perfectly that it's not my claim, but Google's one.
I mean, you wouldn't talk about something you know nothing about, right?
and also somewhat contradictory said that "your individual freedoms stop where other's rights start"
How is it contradictory with the previous point? Since your freedom have a stop, you can't be deprived of it when precisely this stop is respected.
One's freedom to own and use a hunting rifle or, in the US, a gun, have a stop; you don't have the right to use it to kill someone. Thinking that this stop being enforced by Law is a deprivation of your freedom is pure selfish stupidity.
And the exact same apply here.
I imagine most people would assume you're for the changes that google is making
While I do hope that "most people" still acknowledge that the world isn't purely black and white. The concept of "you're either with me or against me" is just a comfortable thought that weak minds use to reassure themselves, while avoiding the need to question their own reasoning.
considering you've only mentioned positives of the change while arguing against negatives mentioned by others.
I mentioned only one positive point, the security part, as answer to someone who addressed it.
As for the negative points, I only addressed the most ridiculous ones.
By example, saying that Google will increase their registration fees, that exist since more than a decade and never have been increased during all this time, is a ridiculous claim. Not only they could have done it at anytime during all those years, but they also don't need such excuse to do it now. And this fee being a US$ 25 one-time payment, it's not because more people will have to pay it, that they'll become rich.
With an annual benefit around US$ 350 billions last year, even if each year there were 1.4 millions new developers paying those one-time fees, it would increase their benefit by only 0.01%. And like at most the number will be a tenth of this, wow... They'll earn 0.001% more, what progress...
Anyway, as the announcement say, they are "creating a separate type of Android Developer Console account for [student and hobbyist developers]". Note that they don't refer to the developer console, but to the account. What will be the condition is still unknown, but I guess that one of the difference will be lower (if not none existing) fees.
I also talked about your stance that "android users have the right to be protected against threats they don't understand" and how google already was abiding by this.
And I already answered this. Four decades of computer security have proved, millions times, that prevention and warnings do
not works.
as for your last claim that it "isn't freedom but selfishness" that's an opinion and one that can easily be reversed, is it not selfish for the ignorant to impose rules and regulations on things they don't understand solely because of their ignorance?
Weird... You pretend to reverse my claim, and then achieved to explain why I'm right when talking about selfishness.
Well, I'm saying this, but perhaps are you some kind of expert in wide scale cybersecurity, doubled by an expert in user management, doubled by a lawyer, and have read Google's announcement. Because if you aren't all this, then you are the one who try to impose his rules and regulations on things he don't understand, solely because of his ignorance.
Not that I'm an expert in all this myself but, unless what your biased reading told you, I haven't took side.
I think most people would expect people who are unfamiliar with something to LISTEN to the warnings.
Absolutely no one with a bit of experience is expecting this...
Rule #1 of computer security: Users are your worst enemy.
If im on a trail and see a snake and a Park ranger tells me not to pick it up because it's venomous and I go and pick it up anyway that's on me.
Then, the person that will come to help you will be bit too, and it will still be on you.
Selfishness Vs Freedom, once again... Your freedom to wander on a trail, versus your selfish desire to do whatever you want when on that trail.
Also in my post above I pointed out how most likely you'd change your tune if these same regulations were enforced across the board from windows to websites.
I wouldn't. When DNS-level ban started, I just installed a DNS on my LAN, and if Windows enforce regulations on the websites I could see, I would disable the service. At worse I would use one of my *nix computers to goes to those, now none available through Windows, websites.
As I said above, perhaps would it be less convenient, but it wouldn't restrict my freedom.
