Birbla

Discussion summary

Discussions revolve around Google's potential move to restrict ad-blocking software on Android, with concerns about a walled garden and security measures.

What the discussion says

  • Some believe Google is intentionally creating a walled garden and restricting ad-blockers.
  • Others argue these changes are security measures and not malicious.
  • Several participants mention the slippery slope fallacy and its relevance.
  • There is skepticism about the ability to measure or predict the impact of these policies.
“Google may designate ad-blocking software as malware soon.”
— ranger_danger
“Google has already started creating a walled garden.”
— dminik

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • I just launched an app in the Google Play Store. I did find it a bit weird that I had to provide my physical home address to get my app listed. Not sure what I would do if someone turned up to complain. Make them a cup of tea?
    by gadders
  • We can't make arbitrary changes to much of hardware and software we rely on. We can't inspect their designs, we can't reproduce them, sometimes we can't repair them. Sometimes we can't even tell that they're designed to act against our interests, and, if we do, sometimes we can't do anything about it. We are forced to choose between price and privacy, between interoperability with proprietary (or official) systems and liberty.

    Android making another step in this direction is bad. But, let's not kid ourselves: we are neck deep in this cyberpunk serfdom, and have been for decades. If we were to get this Android win, it would be only a small win. I'm saying this not to be defeatist, but to remind us of the bigger fight.

    How does this feudal goliath meet its end? When is enough enough?

    by dmos62
  • While attribution is a strong weapon in fighting malicious software, persevering the ability to install and run anonymous software is essential to fight authoritarian regimes and corrupt systems. If we accept that only signed, permitted software can be installed and run on users’ phones, democracy and our freedom are doomed. Regardless if it is in the West or the East, or it’s against an AI overlord.
    by sinuhe69
  • > In computing, a trojan horse or trojan is a kind of malware that misleads users as to its true intent by disguising itself as a normal program. [1]

    Google is Trojans all the way down. What is the true intent of almost every Google product? Data harvesting.

    Every single product is spyware of some kind. They've even managed trojanize TVs by subsidising manufactuers to ship their spyware.

    [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_horse_(computing)

    by willtemperley
  • I use Android because it lets me install whatever I want on my phone, which it does not seem to me, controversial. The phone is either mine or it is not. I don't want Google's protection. Particularly, if I can't refuse it.
    by nusuth31416
  • I understand the frustration (I'm an avid fdroid user across many many devices). But this article comes off as childish with the virus/trojan/"malware vendor".

    With such an article, many (including perhaps google) get the ammo to disregard what fdroid says, by branding them as childish/not to be taken seriously. for eg: no reputable news org is going to post this.

    PS: https://keepandroidopen.org/ is better done.

    by anilgulecha
  • Android users need to switch to Graphene.

    Someone needs to create a Linux based mobile OS foundation - Google's domination is contrary to many large companies interests, and if Meta and many other such companies were approached, they may well donate large sums of money in their own strategic interests.

    by khurs
  • It doesn't solve the current issue, but in case we don't manage to push back on this, some people might not know that there are various actual linux OSes for mobile:

    - SailfishOS: still linux based and seems fairly community inclusive, but the UI part of the stack is closed source. Is the only one officially allowed to run android apps, via emulation. Has existed for a very long time, it's lightweight and I think the most stable/bug-free in this list.

    - Ubuntu Touch: fully open source and community driven, it uses snap packages for security, you might be able to run android apps. Last time I run it also seemed fairly stable/bug-free.

    - PureOS: fully open source and privacy focused. I think it's the only one that, released with the Librem 5, can avoid using proprietary blobs for interfacing with the hardware. Seems less stable than SailfishOS and Ubuntu Touch. You would need to buy a fairly expensive-but-old phone(librem 5) to run it.

    - PostmarketOS: fully open source, focused on being lightweight and revive old phones, has a huge amount of phones it has been tested on, is based on Alpine.

    - Mobian: mobile version of Debian, it's fairly new on this list.

    There are many more linux mobile OSes, but as far as I know these are the main ones. There might also be some inaccuracies on this post, I tested some of these a long time ago, and I never actually run the last 2.

    by sambuccid

Explore Birbla archives