[benry1]

I understand the position, but I think that's a silly concern here. This is an app that stops you from using social media features that absolutely farm every bit of data out of you they possibly can.

Feels a bit like being afraid to install a smart lock on your front door, so instead you leave it unlocked all the time.

[_verandaguy]

This is a bad take, as much as I don't use social media at this point, people need access to good tools to curb use, and in this case, "good" means "open."

[benry1]

Can you elaborate why? It sounds like we agree to me. People need access to good tools to curb use, and all else equal, open is definitely better than closed. I just am saying that I'd rather have an effective closed tool than no tool at all

[Liftyee]

Social media apps don't have the same level of permission to detect scrolling even when they aren't being used. This app does have that higher level of control (accessibility service) and so should be subject to more scrutiny.

[Jaxan]

I am afraid to install smart locks. Too much goes wrong with software. I would install a regular lock instead.

[widforss]

I got locked into my (100+ y/o) house due to a smart lock soon after purchase. It got promptly removed. I'd much rather leave the door unlocked.

[anticrymactic]

A lot of discussion is about the security of these devices (resistance to false open states). But most of the time the safety (false closed states) has even higher stakes associated to it. Having to wait because some api server is slow is annoying but can quickly become life threatening in a different context. Fail-Safe vs Fail-Secure is (imo) often overlooked and probably just as important as the actual implemented security.