1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
"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
And people say slippery slope is a fallacy. I guess hopefully it is in this case.
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.
because it doesn’t actually PROVE its conclusion
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.
@chicken There is very little actual logic on the internet, absent its coding.
“Fallacy” is a technical term, not simply a derogatory one.
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.
“words are defined by their use.”
This, however, is debatable and highly contested by many in semantics. Although it does represent the most contemporary view.
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.
“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.
The problem with your argument is that slippery slopes are often not real.
I explicitly acknowledge this. You have not contradicted my argument.
Hey, they're not equivalent! The second one is a lot worse! Say the shareholders
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
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.
I really hope they don't get away with deleting apps from people's phones.
Wow just wow. Hate that maffia
How can it do that?
And won't people just use piracy websites?
And Google already scans users phones and deletes apps?
it's an emergency function that google silently introduced in all phones years ago. Theoretically it should be used if an app is widespread malware
What do I need to uninstall to disable this 'feature'?
Disable "Play Protect" in your phone's Security settings
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?
Is there any evidence that this will really remove Google's ability to (a) see what's on your phone, and (b) delete whatever they want?
No, because they can always push anything over Play Services updates. But right now it does disable it.
What about Think Shield? Found that next to Play protect in security settings
android xD
Is GrapheneOS affected?
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).
Neat, thanks! Makes me even more grateful that I decided to switch.
Ugh, time to switch is coming... How to protect my android tv... Do i need to go back to media pc?
This but unironicaly.
Sent from my Android phone
the only workaround is to install a custom ROM without google play and google services
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.
Play Services. Replace with Aurora.
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! :(
Honestly, almost every third party store is better, if you can get rid of play services for it.
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.
I trust Aptoide less than Google so I stick with the apkpure website as backup but thqt's a lot less convinient for sure!
The problem is that a lot of apps break without Play Services.
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?
Once again I feel quite comfortable without Google Play serives on my device!
As soon as google starts removing sideloaded apps forcefully without play protect, will be the time when Apples market share increases.
Apk sideloading freedom is the only major difference left between Android and iOS
You realize that on Apple you can never have these apps at all?
If google removes them retroactively from your device or blocks them from being used what’s the difference?
you can hide from google and install it anyway. You can't hide from apple. They control 100% of your device
Always sideload