>>17764617It's not about you, really. Let me try to explain in a way that makes sense, because this issue is a bit obscure. Basically it's a competition between two mutually exclusive world-views when it comes to computing.
You have the old philosophy, that was the main philosophy up until about the early 2000s, where the user is the person who decides the computing, and the incentive is to firewall out everyone else than him. Basically a sort of your home is your fortress type of thinking. That's not to say that this idea was ever perfectly implemented, just that that was the guiding philosophy. You as the computer owner should own all the computing your computer does, and everyone else should be firewalled out.
Then you have the new philosophy, that is that corporations and government should be in charge of the computing your computing unit does, and you, the user, should be firewalled out of that. That's the idea we're progressing towards, like in windows where the telemetry and surveillance is now so integral to the system that it can't really be removed anymore. The next step is of course to start to restrict, instead of just surveilling, but that's a trivial change when that time comes.
Now, does this actually matter to you... a person who don't really care about these things and just wants to run your outlook and your netflicks in your browser? No, it doesn't. Billions of normalfags now live under constant corporate/state surveillance and are happy about that and all you can hope to accomplish by changing is to have more hassle in your life.
So the question is purely philosophical in the Kantian sense. Like "if everyone rejected this idea then it would be impossible." But as we all (should) know, Kant was a massive brainlet tard and the psychopaths are going to win in the end, and your computing unit is going to turn into the 1984 system where you get instantly booted off the internet and your bank account fined when you type the word "nigger" in word.
