ES version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
43% Positive
Analyzed from 2136 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#google#malware#android#app#https#more#com#don#apple#graphene
Discussion (65 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
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.
Rolling the dice on a new technology could wind up being much more favorable.
[1] https://privsec.dev/posts/android/banking-applications-compa...
(For those who haven't been following along: this whole affair started with phishing. People were social-engineered into installing an app and a little later their bank accounts were empty. A big issue in various poor countries.)
I bought a /e/os Fairphone instead.
* (March 2026) Motorola announces a partnership with GrapheneOS Foundation - https://motorolanews.com/motorola-three-new-b2b-solutions-at...
Now that they reached penetration they do the switch - under the guise of security.
Just let me do with my hardware what I want to do it. Let it be my responsibility to install whatever I want (and stop calling it "side-loading", as if I am doing something shady from the "side").
We need to resist this! Alas, from the broader response it seems that most people just do not care.
And you’ll never reach a human to sort it out.
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
The irony of Chinese vendors providing a breath of fresh low-DRM air.
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.
If we ask their fine search engine, the AI helpfully explains malware to be software designed to gain unauthorized access to disrupt, extort payments and/or hijack devices.
If you still think the shoe doesn't fit, imagine what would happen if one managed to create an app with the same capabilities. Google would remove it immediately for being malware. Obvious malware.
but I can totally see Google banning developers and removing their apps for political reasons, where some lobbying group bombs them with emails
because with this they're explicitly saying they're now choosing who gets to be in or out, there's no way for them to say we can't do anything about it
I do think this would improve security, but I also think it's sort of a Trojan horse to lock down the ecosystem
Google has changed the game on something you already own. I'm sure their lawyers have done their homework, but in some jurisdictions this is certainly actionable.
Everything will get fixed, however one small additional device will be installed. The Driver And Passenger Protector device. One day when riding a lone route somewhere in texas, his fuel going low, he'll pull out to a station, where he'll buy some gas and a boy named Bobby Wiggins will let him see his vintage CD collection. When Mister S the Google CEO gets in a car it won't start. The message will display, that the fuel he bough might be containing too much water or other substances harmless to either engine or the passengers, and we need to wait 2 days for the car to start again. Sorry. Bobby this night will fail to defend himself from the zombies and will eat mr S's brain.
https://www.eu-digital-markets-act.com/Digital_Markets_Act_A...
There won't be an open web, there won't be user installs, there won't be anonymity.
Everything will be identified, attested, and allowed only when Google permits it.
Nevermind them choking startups and small biz out of the oxygen they need to survive.
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47935853 (2 months ago, 889 comments)
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47139765 (4 months ago, 378 comments)
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47778274 (3 months ago, 68 comments)
Google is just trying how far they can push this.
Malware is something that maliciously breaks your computer.
This maliciously breaks my computer so it's malware. There's no difference between this and the ILOVEYOU virus, except the delivery mechanism.
> That is because it is Google themselves who is propagating ADV. And once activated, this malevolent process has exactly one goal: to block you from running software by developers who haven’t been approved centrally by Google.
The rest of the article is a claim that Google's new terms of service amount to "malware is any software we [Google] don't like."
It seems like Google is aiming for its own walled garden.
Classic slippery slope fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
History shows that when a "slope" appears... regulation steps in, technology evolves to solve the problem, or the culture shifts to reinterpret the thing.
In almost every case, the feared "bottom" of the slope was never reached because humans constantly built ramps or bridges along the way.
Perhaps it happens because the slope is called out...
But I've come to realize there are serious downsides to letting things run their course too. Some changes are very hard to roll back (famous 'cat's out of the bag') just taking a lot of time to reverse if ever. For example, once there is a long term contractual agreement, if one parties decides to roll back they may just not be able to until the contract expires (like renting land; or worse, selling). A change in software systems for example that need backward compatibility can be quite difficult in technical and nontechnical ways.
I think people need to also keep some sympathy for the protests and let people protest more. I'm leaning more toward: if in doubt, provide visibility to a cause (even if not full support). It's okay to save yourself some energy (in particular for the most important causes). Some things might have to run their course for people to understand they were valuable, and we will probably have to eat some frogs as a consequence. Don't lose you sanity ;) (As the saying goes, "Don't you dare go hollow.")
You can say "Classic slippery slope fallacy." to whatever seems like that to you.
This is an antipattern to scientific thinking as you can frame something x and then say all x are like this, look I created this framework to think about x. But in reality there is no empirical basis for this thought. And it serves no purpose other than doing more argument or winning arguments.
In the end what you wrote equates to "I don't think all of this will happen".
Chaning many possibilities makes the outcome less and less likely obviously.
Also the same principle applies to most religions I know of, for example:
- Assume there is God
- Assume it did create universe.
- Assume x
...
Then this also fits the same pattern and be called the "x fallacy" but it is useless to create an argument like this. This is useless mainly because this thinking pattern is ubiquitous in any world view.
More productive discussion might be to pick some steps in the theory they chained together and argue on that imo.