Expert or not, the point stands that open source helps everyone check what’s really going on. That’s not Dunning-Kruger; it’s common sense. You’re not an expert if you don’t understand these basic concepts.
you’ve strayed from your original argument. the context is that you’re supporting a lunatic because he thinks that looking at source code is somehow better than banning foreign apps outright. we already know what these apps are doing and source code doesn’t give any further insight.
Just banning foreign apps? That’s a knee-jerk reaction, not a solution. We need to know what’s in the code, not just where an app’s made. Security comes from transparency, not blind bans. Let’s not mix xenophobia with tech policy.
Are you daft? Yes. We know what they are doing. Apps inherently have access to a lot of user data. It’s not about trust in the code, it’s about trust in the company. No amount of looking at TikTok’s source code changes what the company may or may not do with all that data it is absolutely collecting.
If you examine the source code of all popular apps you will find that they all collect and send home as much user data as the user has permitted, which is usually a lot. This information accomplishes nothing. The reason that some apps should be banned is because of what the company does with that data and how it doesn’t comply with laws from the banning country.
This all stems from a useless talking point made by a politician which sounds great but doesn’t actually accomplish anything. Feel free to keep arguing, but at this point you’re basically just telling me that the internet is a series of tubes.
Trust in the company is important, but it’s not the whole picture. Reviewing source code can reveal how data is handled on the front end, which is our first line of defense. If the front-end code is designed to collect more data than it should, that’s a problem, regardless of the company’s reputation.
If users give an app permission (which they always do if they want to use it), please enlighten me on what data you think an app collects that is more than it should?
Permissions don’t cover everything. Say an app has access to photos — that’s a green light to use them, but how do we know it’s not overstepping? Without checking the source code, we can’t. It could be hoovering up all your photos right now. That’s why we need to look deeper than permissions.
“we” ? who do you think is going to be doing the looking? it sure as hell wouldn’t be you because you clearly don’t know shit about fuck.
I get that you really think you’re onto something here. you’re not. it’s never going to happen and it wouldn’t effect any meaningful change for society if it did.
ya got duped by a politician’s campaign-speak. let it go.
Who’s doing the looking matters less than the fact that someone should be. It’s about accountability. And change often starts with what seems impossible, until it isn’t. Dismissing the potential for progress just because it’s a challenge is the real dupe here. You basically just admitted you’re wrong this entire time.
Expert or not, the point stands that open source helps everyone check what’s really going on. That’s not Dunning-Kruger; it’s common sense. You’re not an expert if you don’t understand these basic concepts.
you’ve strayed from your original argument. the context is that you’re supporting a lunatic because he thinks that looking at source code is somehow better than banning foreign apps outright. we already know what these apps are doing and source code doesn’t give any further insight.
Just banning foreign apps? That’s a knee-jerk reaction, not a solution. We need to know what’s in the code, not just where an app’s made. Security comes from transparency, not blind bans. Let’s not mix xenophobia with tech policy.
Are you daft? Yes. We know what they are doing. Apps inherently have access to a lot of user data. It’s not about trust in the code, it’s about trust in the company. No amount of looking at TikTok’s source code changes what the company may or may not do with all that data it is absolutely collecting.
If you examine the source code of all popular apps you will find that they all collect and send home as much user data as the user has permitted, which is usually a lot. This information accomplishes nothing. The reason that some apps should be banned is because of what the company does with that data and how it doesn’t comply with laws from the banning country.
This all stems from a useless talking point made by a politician which sounds great but doesn’t actually accomplish anything. Feel free to keep arguing, but at this point you’re basically just telling me that the internet is a series of tubes.
Trust in the company is important, but it’s not the whole picture. Reviewing source code can reveal how data is handled on the front end, which is our first line of defense. If the front-end code is designed to collect more data than it should, that’s a problem, regardless of the company’s reputation.
If users give an app permission (which they always do if they want to use it), please enlighten me on what data you think an app collects that is more than it should?
Permissions don’t cover everything. Say an app has access to photos — that’s a green light to use them, but how do we know it’s not overstepping? Without checking the source code, we can’t. It could be hoovering up all your photos right now. That’s why we need to look deeper than permissions.
“we” ? who do you think is going to be doing the looking? it sure as hell wouldn’t be you because you clearly don’t know shit about fuck.
I get that you really think you’re onto something here. you’re not. it’s never going to happen and it wouldn’t effect any meaningful change for society if it did.
ya got duped by a politician’s campaign-speak. let it go.
Who’s doing the looking matters less than the fact that someone should be. It’s about accountability. And change often starts with what seems impossible, until it isn’t. Dismissing the potential for progress just because it’s a challenge is the real dupe here. You basically just admitted you’re wrong this entire time.