不要下载应用程序
Don't Download Apps

原始链接: https://blog.calebjay.com/posts/dont-download-apps/

台湾正体现了一种日益增长的趋势:企业通过提供小额奖励来积极推广应用程序下载。然而,交出你的手机或下载这些应用程序,除了恼人的广告外,还存在重大风险。 作者警告了“监控资本主义”,在这种模式下,公司收集数据以实施“监控定价”——根据个人 perceived 的财务状况收取不同的费用。这会将权力从市场转移到公司手中,由公司决定商品价值,而不是稳定的经济。 同样令人担忧的是,应用程序服务条款中隐藏着“绑定仲裁”条款。这些条款迫使用户进入私下、公司控制的争议解决程序,绕过法院系统,并可能剥夺法律权利——正如迪士尼与一起意外死亡索赔案件中所悲剧性地说明的那样。 作者预测这种趋势将会恶化,扩展到自动驾驶汽车、智能设备,甚至新闻订阅等场景。核心建议是:**不要下载该应用程序。** 通过抵制这些压力来保护你的数据和权利。

## 不要下载应用程序 - Hacker News 摘要 一篇倡导不下载应用程序的文章引发了 Hacker News 的讨论,焦点在于渐进式 Web 应用程序 (PWA) 令人沮丧的现实以及日益增长的隐私问题。用户报告称,与原生应用程序相比,PWA 通常提供明显降低的体验,这表明公司故意限制其功能以推动应用程序下载。 许多评论员强调,一些公司正在积极阻碍网站可用性(例如 Uber),或者要求个人信息(为了折扣而提供电话号码)以阻止网络使用。普遍的观点是,应用程序即使在未授予权限的情况下,也会通过 IP 地址跟踪和设备指纹识别等方式实现过度跟踪。 虽然一些人对 PWA 未实现的潜力感到失望,但另一些人则发现减少应用程序使用的好处,从而发现更小、更本地化的替代方案,甚至省钱。Android 用户指出网络访问*是*一种权限,但通常被制造商隐藏,而 Netguard 等工具提供更多控制。总的来说,这场对话反映了对应用程序日益增长的不信任,以及对更大隐私和对个人数据控制的渴望。
相关文章

原文

Companies want you to download apps. Here in Taiwan it’s particularly bad: I’ve had shop staff tell me about some discount if you download their app, and when I decline, say something like “It’s really easy! Here, just give me your phone and I’ll do it for you.” Once when I was setting up my phone plan, the staff wanted my phone to, idk, note my IMEI or something, and then when I wasn’t paying attention, installed a local e-commerce app, using my new phone number and name as login details, then proudly told me, “Now you get 300NTD off your first phone bill!” Thanks, for 10$ I can get weekly text and email spam from Shopee, great.

So first tip, in Taiwan, never hand your phone over the counter.

Second tip, never download the app. Corps have all sorts of ways to try to convince you: Use the app to order in-store rather than the kiosk, get free chicken nuggets. Download our app at checkout, get a discount. Whatever the reason, don’t do it, you’re giving more than you’re getting.

Two reasons.

First, we’ve entered an era defined by surveillance capitalism. Companies try to get as much data on you as possible, and then treat you differently based on the data they have on file for you. We all know this as seeing poorly-tuned ads (you just bought a refridgerator? You must love refridgerators! Here’s 100 refridgerator ads), but the new trend is surveillance pricing. A company will know that you just got paid and so charge you just a bit more for your chicken nuggets than they do when you haven’t been paid in two weeks. Annoying, don’t download them app, don’t give them more data than they already have.

The other scary thing though is that that gives the power of currency valuation to companies. WIthout surveillance pricing, everyone pays the same for a cheeseburger. Rich people can buy more cheeseburgers, sure, but at least the price of cheeseburgers is pegged against a dollar, so if someone starts charging too much for cheeseburgers, you can take your dollars to a competitor. Once companies can start charging individual prices, the global economy doesn’t determine how many cheeseburgers your dollars can buy, McDonald’s does. Way too much power to give to these companies that already have too much power.

Second reason, binding arbitration. Binding arbitration is when you sign an agreement with someone that has a clause that says, “if there’s a dispupte, we don’t sue eachother, instead we go through a private process outside the court system and let a mediator decide the outcome.” Bonus, unlike judges, whose salaries are paid for by the taxpayers and therefore you don’t pay a “judge fee” when you go to court (mostly), a mediator needs to be hired. Guess who hires them? Not you!

Walking into a restaurant to buy a cheeseburger, there’s no way a company can force you to enter a contractual agreement that includes binding arbitration. Downloading an app, however, requires agreeing to a “Terms of Service,” and those can absolutely include a binding arbitration clause, and that clause can be applied even to cases outside the app. This happened to Jeffrey Piccolo when his wife died of food poisoning in a Disney World. Disney made a motion to dismiss because a couple years back, Jeffrey had signed up for a free trial of Disney+, which included a binding arbitration clause, which meant that if Jeffrey wanted to complain about how Disney murdered his wife, they’d have to settle it out of court with a mediator that Disney hired. No jury, no judge, no oversight. In the end the only reason Disney dropped this motion is because the news picked it up. That won’t always happen.

At least in the USA, binding arbitration is totally cool according to the Supreme Court, so don’t count on the government to save you. You need to take personal steps to make sure you aren’t signing your rights away. So, don’t download apps.

Predictions: Sometime in the next 5 years, someone will be forced into arbitration with Uber after being hit by one of their self driving cars, because they use Uber Eats. Sometime in the next 5 years, someone’s house will burn down from their Tesla exploding, and they’ll be forced into arbitration because they had a Twitter account, and Twitter is now a subsidiary of TeXla. Sometime in the next 5 years, an Amazon employee who lost a finger on the job will be forced into arbitration because they have a WaPo subscription.

If you want to learn more, Cory Doctorow covers the topic in much more detail.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com