Skip Navigation
191 comments

  • That'd be like saying "I totally trust Google with all of my so-called offline documents by using their totally online suite. They totally wouldn't like, be analyzing the contents once I am online or anything, would they?"

  • apple stans are built different.

    they will bend over backwards insistently to defend apple on every. single. issue. relentlessly.

    apple marketing did get into their heads in a weird cultish kind of way. i've met a couple irl, they are kind of scary to think about.

  • Google: app developers use the zygote loading system to create an everpresent preloaded bedroom on your device with access to whatever they want in sensor hardware access and monitoring. It is essentially like a full equivalent computer user in parallel. This is how it just works while the (exploited-mark) human user is ignorant about operating systems, networking, and security. They have full equivalent access because you do not understand the details. Again these are full equivalent users. They are likely intimately preset with you more than any other partner... If they are there for stalkerware digital slavery, to sell your digital person for exploitation and manipulation, such a transaction is much like prostitution. The motivations of developers that are not removed people out are mostly benevolent, altruistic, or taking a stand to support liberal democratic freedom. So in essence google is a digital slaver running a loose coalition of independent developer pimps that collectively enslave your digital person for manipulation and exploitation.

    Apple: is a central fascist neo feudal lord that centralizes the exploitation and slavery under a single market forum where they directly manipulate and extort every developer and slave. Apple is the stalkerware data salver selling the exact same data to manipulate and extort users just like google.

    The difference has been an open market free for all of privateer piracy raiding the coast of Africa to fuel the Southern plantations and flying the Jolly Roger of google, versus the matrix growing humans in a vast vat field with the Jolly Roger of Apple on the side of the buildings. To call one different than the other in terms of privacy is a joke as sour as US politics represents a balanced spectrum of interests. It is all stalkerware data slavery ownership of a part of an individual's physical person for exploitation and manipulation. Open Source software is the last bastion fortress of real citizens in a democracy fighting off zombie pirates flying a Jolly Roger. This is a choice between Apple vanishing people and Google abducting them from the fortress.

    ROMs are the red pill, a revolver, and a place to stay for fightimg for freedom from the 21st century digital slavery phase of neo fascism, and its coming total war 3.

  • I'm sorry I'm not buying a Linux phone or similar for the same reason I'm not going to become a mechanic to drive a car. I want to activate my SIM card and go. Out of the box. I don't want to have to know about kernel access side booting in dev mode. People like me are the primary user base for most devices.

  • Perhaps there's scope to have a phone be just a dumb 'viewer' and all the processing and apps run on a suitably configured Linux pc or virtual environment at home. The internet in general is getting fast enough that the latency might not be an issue, and it would not need a powerful phone.

    Poor example below, controlling an old phone using Rustdesk.

  • I wanna run away to live with dogs like Diogenes. I'll live in a basket and piss and shit in the streets. No spyware phone required.

  • Week 4 on GrapheneOS:

    This is the best. I should have done this years ago.

    Even IF all you care about is performance, this is the option. Fastest pocket derputer I've used in my life.

  • Not "non-approved apps", unsigned apps. They're not running approval on the software itself. And technically you can still sideload signed software. And you can sideload unsigned software in non-Google certified Android devices, too.

    Hey, I hate their stupid power grab, it sucks and I hope regulators intervene, but if you're gonna get all pretentious and uppity about everybody else's responses you're gonna get fact checked. I don't make the rules.

    • Say, I wanna run an F-Droid app, I trust F-Droid's signature, but Google doesn't, therefore, I can't run it. Tell me: How is that not an "approval process".

      And how about izzyondroid or The Guardian? What if they don't wanna show their IDs or if Google deems them "untrustworthy". (They are more safe than the "Play Store" btw, Google can't even keep their own stores free of malware lol, which a bunch of volunteers have much safer apps)

      • I can already tell this is going to be one of those conversations you get online where people are just itching for somebody to defend the position they want to argue against and will just have that argument regardless of what the other side says.

        But because I'm a very flawed person I'll still go for it and note that technically if F-Droid is the one signing all the apps and Google doesn't like one of them, they'd have to ban F-Droid's entire account, not just the one app. Anything else would require them to look at the apps in the first place, which in this scenario they are not doing.

        But it's certainly possible that they'll ban a specific developer (or a store if the store is doing the signing), and that's one of the reasons why this scheme is unacceptable.

        What it is not is an approval process, since... you know, they're not looking at the apps themselves. Words mean things.

        Presumably, at least nominally, Google wants the signatures to be able to tie an app to a developer. Whether they are going to ban people proactively or not we simply don't know because their stupid policy is barely communicated and they seem to intend to get it rolling before addressing any of these because Apple already used this loophole successfully so why the hell not, I suppose.

191 comments