I understand the position, but I think that's a silly concern here. This is an app that stops you from using social media features that absolutely farm every bit of data out of you they possibly can.
Feels a bit like being afraid to install a smart lock on your front door, so instead you leave it unlocked all the time.
This is a bad take, as much as I don't use social media at this point, people need access to good tools to curb use, and in this case, "good" means "open."
Can you elaborate why? It sounds like we agree to me. People need access to good tools to curb use, and all else equal, open is definitely better than closed. I just am saying that I'd rather have an effective closed tool than no tool at all
It does sound like we agree, but my main issue is the further shifting of the (for lack of a better word) overton window around when closed software is acceptable.
For all its flaws (and despite my general ire towards them), the FSF has done one thing really well over the years, and that's keep the conversation alive around open-source software (which, in turn, has landed us at what I consider to be a really good compromise of a ton of high-quality source-available software).
The FSF isn't pulling as hard as it used to for a variety of reasons, but I think it's important to keep the pressure on and in cases like this, it's really easy to take the stance that at least source-availability shouldn't be compromised on, since the app presumably needs very broad permissions and capabilities from the OS.
Social media apps don't have the same level of permission to detect scrolling even when they aren't being used. This app does have that higher level of control (accessibility service) and so should be subject to more scrutiny.
I am afraid to install smart locks. Too much goes wrong with software. I would install a regular lock instead.
I got locked into my (100+ y/o) house due to a smart lock soon after purchase. It got promptly removed. I'd much rather leave the door unlocked.
A lot of discussion is about the security of these devices (resistance to false open states). But most of the time the safety (false closed states) has even higher stakes associated to it. Having to wait because some api server is slow is annoying but can quickly become life threatening in a different context. Fail-Safe vs Fail-Secure is (imo) often overlooked and probably just as important as the actual implemented security.
Wait, are there smartlocks that depend on the availability of some api service to even open the door? I'd rather call that stupidlocks instead. I mean, just because you're an IoT device it doesn't mean you are smart, ffs.
I have been locked out of more than 1 airbnb due to lack of cell service not being able to get codes for locks, it is very annoying and dumb.