this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2025
523 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

74966 readers
2995 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
523
Google's plan to restrict sideloading on Android has a potential escape hatch for users (www.androidauthority.com)
submitted 3 days ago by ardi60@reddthat.com to c/technology@lemmy.world
262 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

You could blame the pedestrian, but it would be incorrect.

How would you know that when I haven't even specified any circumstances? Unless your intention is to suggest there are no circumstances in which a pedestrian is even partially to blame?

If a pedestrian sprints out from behind a wall into traffic moving 70MPH, that's 100% the driver's fault for hitting them? This is the logic you want to go with?

A pedestrian is more vulnerable and harmless than a vehicle

What does that have to do with whose responsibility it is!?

and arguably has more of a reason to be traveling through the downdown of a city on foot than the vehicle does

No they don't? And why are we downtown?

Imagine for a moment if in the model t days, the dangerous vehicle was held responsible and regulated instead of the people walking.

You mean instead of a world where we hold responsible the people who are actually responsible?

We would have walkable cities today and cars wouldn't be allowed to take over.

No, we would just have more criminals. The only way we have walkable cities is by banning cars.

We are not talking about individual blame, we're upset at the historical choices that led to a car centric landscape.

I know you want to talk about that. I agree with you. But it is, in fact, not what we're talking about. We're talking about the supposed use of the word "jaywalking" implying that all pedestrians are to blame for collisions.

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The time is 1900. There are no traffic laws. A car almost runs into a dude.

If you say, "that car is dangerous" you are correct, and society tends towards making laws that protect pedestrians.

If you say "that person is jaywalking" you are framing the situation such that the car has more of a right to be there than the person. Maybe you think that cars are modern. "The wave of the future." This is the incorrect framing. We have seen how much of a mistake this was.

Some places like the Netherlands have been undoing the damage, rectifying the error in urban design.

We are downtown because that was the context in which the term "jaywalking" was invented. To kick pedestrians out of their own downtown.

We're talking about the supposed use of the word "jaywalking" implying that all pedestrians are to blame for collisions

Maybe that's what you're talking about. The rest of us are talking about how "jaywalking" was coined to make a normal behavior (people walking around their city) seem wrong. That is why so many people are telling you to listen to what they're saying.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Can't help but notice you declined to answer any of my questions.

If you say "that person is jaywalking" you are framing the situation such that the car has more of a right to be there than the person.

Incorrect. You are framing the situation such that the jaywalker is endangering themselves and other road users by ignoring the rules of the road that keep everyone safe. "Jaywalking" does not refer to pedestrians as a whole, only the people committing the act of jaywalking.

Some places like the Netherlands have been undoing the damage, rectifying the error in urban design.

Wonderful! Good for them!

We are downtown because that was the context in which the term "jaywalking" was invented.

Okay, so "jaywalking" only applies "downtown". Presumably you can provide a source for this?

The rest of us are talking about how "jaywalking" was coined to make a normal behavior (people walking around their city) seem wrong

That is not what you're talking about. You're talking about automotive propaganda and the history of urban infrastructure. Nothing about the term itself or how it was misused or appropriated to mean something other than exactly what it does.

That is why so many people are telling you to listen to what they're saying.

They keep saying things that I already know. Strawman topics that I agree with and don't require further discussion.

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

You are framing the situation such that the jaywalker is endangering themselves and other road users by ignoring the rules of the road that keep everyone safe. "Jaywalking" does not refer to pedestrians as a whole, only the people committing the act of jaywalking.

This is simply miskaken. At the time the term was invented, the streets were for pedestrians. There were natually no laws or norms saying people shouldnt walk in the street. Car companies waged a campaign to kick pedestrians out. If we can't agree on this basic fact, I am not sure how to continue the discussion.

References: https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history

https://www.salon.com/2015/08/20/the_secret_history_of_jaywalking_the_disturbing_reason_it_was_outlawed_and_why_we_should_lift_the_ban/

https://missedhistory.com/1800/lobbying-trick-blamed-pedestrians-inventing-jaywalking/

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/03/13/the-classist-racist-history-of-jaywalking/

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There were natually no laws or norms saying people shouldnt walk in the street

There aren't any today either. But there are regulations about where and when people should walk in the street. Violations of these regulations (not literally just moving your feet back and forth) are known as jaywalking.

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There are laws. They are called the right of way. I will not argue further with someone who is unable to incorporate new information.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago

There are laws

Now you're doing that strawman thing again. No one said there were no laws. What I said is that there are no laws saying that people cannot walk in the street.

They are called the right of way.

Yes, exactly. Jaywalking is the act of ignoring the right of way. Thank you for clarifying that.

I will not argue further with someone who is unable to incorporate new information.

Please, by all means, stop arguing.