Will once again re-up the concept of a “right to root access”, to prevent big corps from pulling this bs over and over again: https://medhir.com/blog/right-to-root-access
Most of users are not able to keep themselves safe in the internet - they want to install all kind of crap without thinking too much.
All of this is companies making it possible that average Joe could just click links, install any kind of crap and still be somewhat secure.
Warnings aren't always enough, sometimes we have to lock people down and physically prevent them from harming themselves.
It's not always people being stupid. I recall reading an article by someone who got scammed who seemed generally quite knowledgeable about the type of scam he fell for. As he put it, he was tired, distracted, and caught at the right time.
Outside of that, a lot of the general public have a base assumption of "if the device lets me do it, it's not wrong," and just ignore the warnings. We get so many stupid pop-ups, seemingly silly warning signs (peanuts "may contain nuts") that it's easy to dismiss this as just one example of the nanny state gone mad.
Seriously ill people as an exceptional last resort though, right? Or just everyone?
Is your position that it would be better for his freedom for me to let him jump if I couldn’t dissuade him?
That said, I think suicide is a complicated case because some people want to be stopped, and some people will just try again the next night.
So where does my statement suggest we should make locking people up for their own good the norm?
I can come up with even more mundane examples of where we physically prevent people from harming themselves. High barriers to stop people getting into the tiger enclosure. If a member of staff saw someone dumb enough to try and climb in, rest assured they'd be physically dragged out for their own safety.
Or do you suggest we allow the general public to wander into the tiger exhibit to pet the animals? Personal freedom and all that.