It's a proper argument on its surface, complete with claim, warrant, and impact.

"Features aren't rights" > see: Consumer Rights.

"Force of the state making sideloading mandatory is bad" > ...Except we have antitrust laws? The Play Store becomes the only source of apps, all transactions are routed through Google Billing? Not a problem for you?

"99% users won't use" > Except for when Google demands that transactions happen exclusively through Google Billing, which resulted in the release of the Epic Games Launcher for the world's highest grossing games by download.

"Sideloading is too nice" > Listen, either it's the case that "sideloading" is a threat to normies or it's not. Are normies your 1% or 99% of users? I thought according to you 99% of users won't sideload.

"You don't get to decide" > That language ties in pretty well with your fear of the use of the 'force of the state'; that tells me that you support freedom. Great-- you're right, why not let corporations be corporations and do anti-consumer things, they'll be very good to us (while they lobby the state).

▲

xondono 9 days ago | parent [-]

> "Features aren't rights" > see: Consumer Rights.

Consumer rights aren’t features, and they’re very intentionally written to not be.

> "Force of the state making sideloading mandatory is bad" > ...Except we have antitrust laws?

Then sue them over those.

> Listen, either it's the case that "sideloading" is a threat to normies or it's not. Are normies your 1% or 99% of users? I thought according to you 99% of users won't sideload.

I meant that 99% of users aren’t afraid by the term “sideloading”. That you’re not using something doesn’t mean you’re afraid of it, it just means you don’t want it.

> you're right, why not let corporations be corporations and do anti-consumer things, they'll be very good to us (while they lobby the state).

Because corporations tend to die when they do anti-consumer things, but governments keep doing anti-citizen things without much trouble.

	▲	juris 9 days ago \| parent [-]
		"Consumer rights aren’t features" > Any attempt to weasel out of a marketed feature set is generally and colloquially known as "false advertising"; consumers have a right to the features of a product they purchase under the original conditions of the purchase agreement. "Then sue them" > My point was that the force of the state is a necessary evil to ensure fair competition. Yours implied that the force of the state is overreach, but if you warrant that, then you wouldn't enjoy protections against corporations afforded to us by antitrust law. "That you're not using something..." > For you to claim that sideloading presents additional threat surface to the normie consumer, you need to also claim that normie users are sideloading. This means that if 99 percent of users are not sideloading, there is no threat surface. "Because corporations tend to die when they do anti-consumer things, but governments keep doing anti-citizen things without much trouble." > Absolutely not. The paradigm has changed from the time when you could vote with your dollar. You and I are economically and legally irrelevant (where is Congress, anyway?), and corporations like the Big G are too big to fail. They are -already- colluding with government to do both anti-consumer and anti-citizen things. Nominatively, this is why both the government AND google do not want you to side-load software outside of their control.