These assholes used to spy on people - their app used to keep users’ microphones open, so that together with location, they could detect whether bars were airing football matches, and try to find unlicenced ones.
They fucking finally said the quiet part loud! Make a dystopian filtering system with CSAM as an excuse, then use it for filtering piracy, unauthorized gambling sites (but just because they’re not paying the taxes, not because actually caring about the citizens mental health), and so on
The UK just passed this exact law. They say it’s to protect children, but it requires all companies to build a backdoor into their end to end encryption specifically so they can spy on users for “inappropriate material that is harmful to children.”
No, since on GrapheneOS Google Play Store/Services doesn’t have permission to silently install/uninstall apps. They are sandboxed like any other app (i.e. F-Droid).
That’s the only component? If so, CalyxOS, GrapheneOS, LineageOS, and similar would be protected against this, since they have neither Play Services nor Play Protect. Am I correct in my understanding?
That’s overkill, with a rooted phone you can simply freeze (might be able to freeze it with ADB as well) or delete the Play store (it’s the Play Store where this Malware lives). GMS and Account Manager will work just fine without the Play store.
Or, like the other person said you can just disable Play Protect.
I just wish theu finalky fixed it, the rate limiting is really damn annoying by now! I started to sideload apps from apkpure and update them with Aurora to keep my anonymous user account but it can’t take long till that’s gone too I guess! :(
Well, Aurora is the only one and it’s jalf broken and has a history of lacking development so the situation isn’t great but I don’t plan to ever get Play Services again ether
The only open source one, yes. But since the Apps in the store are proprietary too, i just have both (in my case Aptoide) in Shelter with Tracker Control.
All 10 proprietary apps i use don’t, including Post, transportation, banking and Twint. Only thing that doesn’t work is some ads in the 2 games i have. I don’t know, maybe swiss companies are late in the enshitification game?
“If it can be done and it is done, for example, for crimes such as child pornography, for intellectual property, which is stealing, they should have to do it too.” - LaLiga chief Javier Tebas
Ah yes, two equivalent crimes: CSAM and… um… watching sports without paying
The slippery slope is a fallacy only because there’s no proof things will go one way or the other. You can use slippery slope to say ridiculous things. E.g “if we let gays marry, it’ll be pedos next” is a good example of the fallacy whereas “if we let private corporations spy on us for a good reason, they’ll expand their powers to extract even more profit” is not, but either way, you need to know the context (which is that corporations serve to extract maximum possible wealth and have no morals).
The problem is that slippery slopes are often real, and citing it as a fallacy is normally done to dismiss the idea that it could be real, without making an argument. As you say, whether one thing will lead to another depends on circumstances. But a fallacy is supposed to be an argument that is wrong because of faulty logic. A claim that one thing will lead to another can be wrong, but I would say that it’s almost always wrong because the underlying premise is wrong, not because there is a claim of an existence of a slippery slope. For example the “gay marriage -> child abuse” rhetoric is coming from religious conservatives who likely believe that strict adherence to their religious rules and practice is the main thing keeping society from “degeneracy” and general bad behavior. Given the premise, the conclusion isn’t illogical, the problem is that the premise is wrong. Instead of calling it a fallacy, it would be a better argument to have the premise clarified, and make an argument against its merits.
In the case of the OP situation, I would say that when a company is actively using tools to examine and control the contents of a user’s device, that makes it more plausible for demands that they expand what they do this for will be followed. I’m sure plenty of people would try to dismiss that as a fallacy, but really it’s a claim about how things work.
@chicken@boonhet It’s a difference between deductive and inductive reasoning. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy because it doesn’t actually PROVE its conclusion. That doesn’t mean the conclusion is wrong, just that the argument doesn’t prove it (though it may insinuate many possible conclusions). Other corroborating evidence can lend itself to a reasonable suspicion, or even a strong inductive argument, but it falls short of logical certainty.
Hardly any casual arguments do though. Almost every argument you see on the internet is a stated claim only, with the reasoning only implied. You don’t see those being called fallacies.
It can be a technical term, but words are defined by their use. If you make a claim that one thing will lead to another, and someone says that’s a slippery slope fallacy, what are the chances they will accept that it isn’t a fallacy if you then elaborate on your reasoning for why one thing will lead to another? Basically zero, because what they meant wasn’t to criticize your failure to provide reasoning, it was to dismiss your claim on the basis of its shape and to call you stupid. A failure to provide reasoning beyond implied reasoning isn’t something most people see as a problem at all.
I think that if someone was arguing in good faith, instead of citing “slippery slope”, they would instead ask why you believe one thing will lead to another.
“If you make a claim that one thing will lead to another, and someone says that’s a slippery slope fallacy, what are the chances they will accept that it isn’t a fallacy if you then elaborate on your reasoning for why one thing will lead to another? Basically zero, because what they meant wasn’t to criticize your failure to provide reasoning, it was to dismiss your claim on the basis of its shape and to…”
I don’t disagree with this at all. That’s why I avoid arguing with people on the internet.
Well alright, you could consider them to be defined otherwise, but pragmatically you have to think about them that way if you want to effectively communicate with people, since they meant what they meant and you are able to know what they meant so pretending you thought they meant something different will just hold things up. If you don’t make a habit of arguing with people on the internet I guess that might be less of a concern.
“what they meant wasn’t to criticize your failure to provide reasoning, it was to dismiss your claim on the basis of its shape and to call you stupid.”
^^^
Arguing with people like this is pointless. And endless.
Sometimes. It’s a spectrum; what people take seriously depends on their social environment, so you can get people who have absorbed arguments like that and maybe aren’t very rational but still are capable of listening and have worthwhile things to express.
