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
  • Emotional talk aside, there's not many good solution to this problem, unless of course F-Droid starts to make their own phones.

    But then, Librem 5 Phone was just failed few years ago, telling the story that people who care about their rights are still sensitive to how much they would pay (which is a form of rights too).

    Also but, there is the thing, making a phone is not easy. If you reach deep enough, you'll eventually reach the layer where you realize how solid the monopolization has become. The global telecom standards if you read them is in the hands of few companies, Boardcom, Motorola, Huawei, Nokia and such. They'll control whether or not your phone can access the network. Then there's telecom companies who runs the network, and they might have to approve your device/modem as well since they got their channel allocation from the government.

    It's not easy, and it's not just the software problem.

    Oh and yes, we also have the software problem. Linux, if you want to go that route, cannot be used as a mobile OS, as least not for the public, because the average people don't know how to properly secure their system, and Linux is not a restrictive-by-default system. It will be a malware nightmare if you ship Linux on a phone as is.

    The best hope for now I think is for geek vendors to make more mobile/4/5G enabled Fairphone or uConsole-like product to the enthusiast market, and then you can load whatever OS on it as you want.

    by nirui
  • There is a good solution. A big disclaimer and the user accepting the risk of running the software they want. The same solution they've been doing for years that did not need change. The new developer program is only here because it is more convenient to Google and governments.
    by KJs6ZxELzQM37O
  • I was surprised to hear Librem failed, but a quick search show this is not true. Quite alive and hopefully well.
    by grosswait
  • The Librem phones do exist and people use them.

    Did it take the world by storm ? No.

    But it exists, has users & is building the case (together with Sailfish OS and others) that having an abusive mobile OS duopoly is not the desirable state of matters.

    by m4rtink
  • > because the average people don't know how to properly secure their system, and Linux is not a restrictive-by-default system. It will be a malware nightmare if you ship Linux on a phone as is.

    Linux is a kernel. A Linux-based distribution decides what the defaults would be. Why, in your opinion, would a Linux distro targeting phone-ish ARM64 hardware be problematic? Why would it be a "malware nightmare"?

    by einpoklum
  • Meanwhile in Luxembourg: Google loses fight against EU’s $4.7 billion Android fine https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/google-loses-fight-aga...
    by schnatterer
  • I'm still a little bit confused why the EU does not take action in this. This is definitely a monopolist overreach which has to be shutdown from the beginning
    by wolfi1
  • They'd have had to start with Apple which is more locked down and has comparable market power. Apple fans (iirc like 30% of the voter population) already scream bloody murder when compatibility increases due to legislation and Apple pushes some marketing about how terrible this is

    We've accepted that OS vendors can do this for decades. I think that was our mistake: relying on Google as the only available vendor. We can't make a law that punishes Google for having been open all these years. Yes, of course I (like any 'HN' hacker, I'd think) would be in favor of forcing Apple to be open as well, but then it seems that the powers that currently run the EU (and a lot of voters) kinda likes their remote DRM attestation for this digital identification project that you'll soon need for anything not suitable for toddlers and not reachable via a darkweb

    by Aachen
  • this is something the EU would love, it's part of the whole Transparency thing where you dox yourself to everyone

    HNers (especially Americans) are super naive and think the EU is some bastion of freedom. no. it just wants to be a huge nanny state but in a wholesome way, where you can do whatever you want as long as it's approved

    by r_lee
  • Indeed. I wonder if it falls foul of labour law. Blacklisting is illegal and whitelisting (certification) is normally done with multiple competing third party certifiers.
    by ajb
  • But they did. EU formally allows all these measures by Google in the name of "security" as described in Digital Markets Act Art. 6 (4) fourth paragraph.

    https://www.eu-digital-markets-act.com/Digital_Markets_Act_A...

    by hurfdurf
  • We finally live in an age when I can tell a clanker that I want an app that does something that I need, connect the phone with adb and in half an hour have a working solution for my tiny problem while knowing little about android development. This is something google should embrace, not kneecap.
    by StingyJelly
  • Installing via adb is not affected.
    by hurfdurf
  • What's their interest in you building side-loaded apps instead of using their data hungry services?
    by cryptonym
  • Then tell the courts to stop fining them and start fining all the closed platforms.

    There is a clear legal asymmetry where allowing competitors on your platform makes you liable if they complain, but blocking out everyone except for yourself is a totally ok and legally rosy way to do business.

    by WarmWash
  • 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
  • You should not distribute apps via the Google Play Store. Using alternative means, including F-Droid as relevant. And it was a mistake of you to register, because you're helping Alphabet exert more pressure and control on others.
    by einpoklum
  • This is so that you can be sued or prosecuted if the app is malicious.
    by someonebaggy
  • It's because of a law in California. Don't remember the reason behind it, but Google decided to apply it everywhere. It's also why I let my app die years ago instead of publishing the updated version.
    by Izkata
  • well they can swat you, order pizza, send you packages (who knows with what inside), spread false info about you if you've given out more info etc...

    all it takes is one guy who gets too mad for some reason

    and it's gonna be a lot more costly for you to do anything about it vs. that guy who gets to be completely anonymous about it

    by r_lee
  • 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
  • That's a nice digital content you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it...
    by aargh_aargh
  • Well… you can run android without google? The problem is that essential security services require apple or google devices and you as a member of society need the security services.
    by kalx
  • 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
  • I have the opposite opinion, Google is doing a lot of garbage in the name of "Security", time to play their game and report their control on Android as security vulnerability
    by realusername
  • The article provides enough evidence for that label. Unlike Google, who can arbitrarily call anything "malware". This is the contrast the article attempts to point out.
    by PufPufPuf
  • I think the point they are trying to make is that in the terms of service Google says they get to define what is malware (halfway through article) so the author is trying to point out that exact danger: what happens when Google gets to randomly call things malware.
    by 0x53