Have you tried using your web browser to buy gas or ride the bus?

The "party line" is not that holding companies accountable for security and also requiring them to be insecure is inconsistent.

I actually did explain specifically why it was pretty dumb and you ignored that point completely.

I don't know that sounds pretty dumb on the whole. The key challenge is determine who is at fault in the event of a breach. I don't think it's reasonable to hold companies responsible for privacy while also requiring them to allow privacy to be invaded.

That world arrived at least ten years ago and if you don't like it, running Google's OS isn't even remotely admissible as an answer.

It makes no sense to me that people who feel this way insist on running a vendor's Android or iOS.

Do you have aging parents?

I really don't see the issue with waiting 24 hours. These protections in general seem very likely to help unsophisticated users. It really seems like a nothingburger to me personally. I was going to make an analogy to the ethics of getting vaccinated (and getting mildly ill of a day) to protect the immunity compromised members of the community, but even that is laughable because it underscores what a nothingburger this is (far more of the community is technologically unsophisticated than is immunocompromised, and what sophisticated users are being asked to do is closer to wearing a mask once for 24 hours).

Install a different ROM then that doesn't make you wait 24 hours one time.

Boiling the scammers and criminals is good.