rbecker

Google is using Widevine to control the browser market. Can't make a competitive browser without their permission. That is the purpose of DRM, and it works.

Instead, they're chanting "White silence equals violence". I'm sure demonization of a group that's on the way to becoming a minority will work out great.

The point isn't to protect content, but to need permission from the DRM makers to make a viable browser (or TV, or music player, or ebook reader, or...) Without their blessing, it won't work with locked content, and your users will go to a competitor favored by the DRM owners.

> the most fundamental idea is minimizing the amount of surprises a user faces

I wouldn't call being given the master key to my own computer "surprising".

> Freedom and computer security are in fundamental opposition.

Only if you interpret "freedom" as "freedom for apps" instead of "freedom for the user". None of what you said precludes the user (I won't say "owner") being able to override Apple, or take Apple's place in deciding what their device may do.

In your mind, is a platform only "secure" when ultimate control is with the manufacturer, and not the user?

How much more "secure" were Apple's users in Hong Kong, after Apple decided to disable the app they were using to track the police?

> Walled gardens are safer, and usually have some implicit or explicit quality guarantee (like the Nintendo seal of quality).

And consumers who want to limit themselves to the safety of Apple's app store are free to do so. But Apple goes a step beyond this, and prevents consumers who don't want to be locked-in this way, from using "unauthorized" stores or apps.

It's false to claim that the only way to offer safety is to take away user freedom.

It must be very convenient to be able to dismiss research done by anyone that might be remotely interested in publishing findings you dislike.

When a left-leaning institution publishes findings that broadly align with the left, do you also dismiss them?

> Surprised to see the level of anger here about this.

Anger could be due to:

1) Kill competition by offering product at a loss.

2) Once competition is dead and people are invested in the product and ecosystem, start charging.

Even the Brookings link cites a few studies, while the rest of this thread's posts offer nothing but hand-wringing and loaded questions.

And you're right, the links aren't exclusively about marriage. So if "married" was erased from the original claim, you'd agree with it?