It's an honest question. I know HN has always been a pretty feisty place, and people here tend to be contrarian, but within the last six months or so, I find myself overwhelmed with a level of cynicism that I find incomprehensible.
Discussions about politics regularly seem grounded in conspiracy theories. Discussions about tech company decisions seem to overwhelmingly focus an anti-consumer monopolistic goals, when entirely sensible parallel explanations seem obvious. I'm writing this because the discussion of Android side-loading seems to mostly involve people who think scamware is somehow irrelevant, when it seems to be an ever evolving threat.
This has caused my to engage a lot more recently, but I think it'll ultimately cause me to engage less. I don't think I can handle debating basic economic and political questions, when I'm actually trying to talk about some neat product.
Has HN just grown a lot in the last year or something? Is there a way that we could signal whether commenters have anything worthwhile to say? I'm fine with the way the site is, and I'll keep posting when I have something interesting to share, but it has been weighing on me recently.
Is that bad faith? You are arguing over a system of tradeoffs, and by the sound of it most people disagree that your tradeoff is worthwhile. The onus is on you to demonstrate that the threat of sideloading scamware is greater than the threat of losing sideloading.
We saw the same thing happen when Apple proposed Client Side Scanning. Both sides accused the other of being bad-faith when they failed to justify their stance versus the tradeoff.