Well, I was thinking along the lines of, if you fall for a crypto scam, 24 h does nothing about it.
If someone calls as a Nigerian Prince and you want to buy in, a cooldown won't help either.
If someone impersonates your close family, it just might. But I imagine scammers are smart enough to dissuade the victim from calling the known number with a reasonable excuse. Then the cooldown wouldn't help in this situation either. Something something scammers being good and all that.
And even if we disregard all that, there's always the option of having the switch have no cooldown if set during initial device setup. Afterwards - sure. Give a 24 or 48 hour cooldown.
If someone wants it immidiately - they can do a factory reset.
But the problem is - this is not what's being done. What is being done is the start of a 72 hour cooldown, then 1 week, then 3 months, then no option to switch off at all. This is what I'm against, and what most other Lemmings are.
And to top it off - acting like this to "protect users" is a slippery slope of ignorance in and of itself.
You see, putting users under a glass dome (what all these "security" measures are) takes away their knowledge. With enough hand-holding ("security" or otherwise), they end up dumb, ignorant and incompetent.
"With great power comes great responsibility". Well, the opposite is also true: "With no power comes no responsibility".
And such powerless users are the ones who will, ironically, fall for ALL the scams.
The ones who are so "protected" that they have no common sense idea of how and what their phone does.
Once "logic" turns to "magic", you're in for a wild ride.
Because, even if they do know (which most won't), they won't be able to prevent the scam.
Why?
Because they're mostly locked out of and don't have posession of their phone.
They may be the owners, but Google is the one who can do what it wants with the phone. Not the user.
Not really. Backlash is important because it shows there's an alternative. And not to the company - the company won't change. But its users, customers and consumers just might.
It creates publicity, which triggers people to talk and think about the issue.
Which is a good thing as well as a driver of change.
Boycotts are also effective. The only problem is, huge companies have their fingers in multiple jars (industries, brands, etc.) and their main customers are other companies.
This gives them a great dose of stability. But if people were to suddenly boycott all of say Nestle's brands, stores wouldn't order new Nestle stock.
There's also no need for extreme backlash in some cases. Just look at Walmart or Microsoft.
Microsoft is bleeding users at a record rate. Sure, the year of the Linux desktop is still not here, but Linux market share has been rising dramatically lately. Why?
Because Microsoft keeps shooting itself in the foot.
Walmart is a similar story.
There's something about huge consumer-facing companies that makes them extremely vulnerable to losing focus and falling out with consumers.
If some more Boeings fell out of the sky and not just one or two a few years ago, airlines would be looking to clear thenselves of all Boeing stock. This wouldn't even need backlash.
Backlash is a source of bad PR. And bad PR causes customer loss. That's profit loss. That's a bad credit score. Hell, even the government might take a look and find some issues they'd like to check out!
As you can see, this can all spiral out of proportion.
And backlash is the first step in this story.