This is a good point. While there is nothing factually incorrect in the statement “rooting your phone can void your warranty and pose a security risk”, if you imagine factual statements are the same thing as value judgments it becomes very problematic.

Similarly it is pretty messed up when people say stuff like “fire can burn you if you aren’t careful” because so many people rely on fire for food and warmth.

▲

fc417fc802 a day ago | parent | next [-]

Having your vehicle serviced by someone other than the dealer could void your warranty and poses a safety risk.

Cooking animal products at home poses a health risk. You should be sure to only ever consume animal products prepared by a duly licensed establishment.

The chauffeur's union would like to take this opportunity to remind you that amateurs operating their own motor vehicles risk serious injury and even death.

The FSD alliance would like to point out that hiring a licensed chauffeur also poses a non-negligible risk. Should you choose to make use of a personal vehicle it is strongly recommended that you select one certified by the FSD alliance. Failure to do so could potentially impact your health insurance premium.

▲

theluketaylor a day ago | parent | next [-]

> Having your vehicle serviced by someone other than the dealer could void your warranty and poses a safety risk

Good tongue in cheek post, but in the US Magnuson-Moss prohibits warranty claim denials merely on the basis of non-OEM parts and service. It also puts the burden on the manufacturer to demonstrate the defect or failure was the direct result of the non-OEM part. Other jurisdictions have similar laws on the books.

Right to repair already exists in certain aspects and needs to be expanded (and enforced. Tons of those ‘will void warranty’ stickers are lies and you have legal rights to poke around)

▲

jrflowers a day ago | parent | prev [-]

You make an interesting point here. While “rooting your phone can void your warranty and pose a security risk“ may be a factually true statement, we must also consider some entirely unrelated and possibly untrue statements that could be theoretically uttered in another reality.

We can get so bogged down with “things that are real” and “exist in this universe” that we completely fail to focus on the vital stuff like “Bigfoot is circumcised” and “Who did it?” and “Why?”

▲

fc417fc802 a day ago | parent [-]

On the contrary. My statements bear equivalent accuracy to yours in our current reality. My statements are also very obviously FUD. So is yours.

Or do you dispute that you could be hospitalized for salmonella if you botch cooking poultry at home? Or perhaps you feel that there is no straightforward way to inadvertently endanger your life by servicing your vehicle incorrectly?

▲

jrflowers a day ago | parent [-]

Interesting. While there is no such thing as a chauffeurs union or an FSD alliance, if we say that they exist maybe they do. Similarly, if you say something is “FUD” then maybe it becomes that.

I genuinely do not understand the last two sentences. Are you pro- or anti- “telling people that salmonella exists” ? Is saying “salmonella exists and can be a problem” FUD or what? Do you think salmonella isn’t real

▲

fc417fc802 a day ago | parent [-]

Yes, the final two were tongue in cheek but follow the same pattern and thus serve to illustrate the point being made. You don't seem to be engaging in good faith.

> Is saying “salmonella exists and can be a problem” FUD or what?

Obviously that depends on context. If a bunch of restaurants form a PAC and start lobbying with that message to restrict the sale of animal products at the grocery store then it is. If the FDA mentions it on a page about basic food handling safety then it probably isn't (depending on the surrounding text ofc).

Rooting your device is a security risk the same way that servicing your own car is a safety risk. When I hear "security risk" or "safety risk" I'm expecting something that's inherently dangerous like wingsuit jumping or cave diving. I'm not expecting something that should only ever fail if I don't exercise due diligence. This difference in perceived meaning is being exploited by those spreading the message similar to when Coca-Cola got sued for a label that implied pomegranate juice when the bottle contained only 0.3 percent.

When device vendors lock end users out of their own devices and then aggressively spread such a message to justify doing so it qualifies as FUD or propaganda. A vested interest has disenfranchised people as part of a long term strategy to enrich themselves and is attempting to manipulate the public narrative regarding their actions.

	▲	jrflowers 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> You don't seem to be engaging in good faith. You posted actual nonsense and then declined to say if you are for or against telling people that salmonella is real. Anyway, in good faith > Obviously that depends on context. This makes sense. Context matters, and it is important to imagine some when it is missing. For example, in this exchange you saw a stranger on the internet post “rooting your phone can void your warranty and pose a security risk” and, in a vacuum of any relevant information, pictured a world where they work at Samsung in their Awful Spyware Division and started posting from that premise. Or just saying it at all FUDs up the vibe and ruins the context? The point you are making is either that it is important to invent context if you feel FUD, or that the wrong context for certain correct information is “the context wherein it is shared”. Can you clarify which is it? Either we agree that rooting your phone can void your warranty and pose a security risk and you just sort of imagine me working for a terrible company, or We both agree that rooting your phone can void your warranty and pose a security risk but you and I are the only people that should know that. Any context where this fact that we agree about could be shared is made inappropriate by its inclusion. Like are we dealing with hallucinations or are we dealing with Untouchable Facts

▲

franga2000 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

In fact there is a lot factually incorrect.

For starters, in most places, warranty is a legal requirement and the manufacturer isn't allowed to void it for whatever reason they want. If my phone's battery starts getting really hot in normal use, or I start getting dead pixels on my screen or whatever else, the fact I have a custom OS on my phone isn't relevant to the warranty claim any more than having it in a case or putting some stickers on it. Yes, it'll make claiming it more difficult, but that doesn't mean it's void, just that you'll have to fight through a few more tiers of support agents to get it fixed.

More importantly, rooting is only a security risk in the sense that it increases the attack surface for exploits. The same can be said for any other system-level software. Like if you buy an Nvidia graphics card in your computer and that loads its kernel driver, malware now has one more place to exploit. Are Nvidia graphics cards a security risk?

We've come an incredibly long way from just dropping /xbin/su and calling it a day. Modern (as in the last 10 years) root solutions have caller checks based on a user-defined whitelist and really modern implementations use kernel-level checks to make sure the app wanting root access is allowed to get it. The only way this can be dangerous is if one of those apps or the root solution itself has a code execution exploit. But again, the same can be said for the plethora of system-level bloatware vendors install these days.

	▲	jrflowers a day ago \| parent [-]
		>For starters, in most places, warranty is a legal requirement and the manufacturer isn't allowed to void it for whatever reason they want. This only makes the statement untrue if you use “can” and “will” interchangeably. >More importantly, rooting is only a security risk in the sense that it increases the attack surface for exploits. This is a good point. What even is “attack surface” anyway? Does anybody actually consider it when “evaluating security posture”? If I simply choose not to care about attack surface because I don’t want to, then doesn’t it simply become a factual nonissue? There are no answers to these questions