84
Language
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2025
84 points (100.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
9372 readers
692 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I strongly disagree. There is absolutely a use case for my mom not needing me to wipe her phone every time she tries to get Duolingo or whatever.
There is no scenario where an entire segment of devices should be locked to two companies having full control of what software can run worldwide, though. That part demands regulatory intervention.
One person's inability to use a common device is not an excuse to make it worse for everyone else.
My parents are pretty incompetent when it comes to tech, but it wasn't difficult for them to understand not to install random shit and call if in doubt.
It's not one person, it's the vast majority of the userbase.
Which, to be clear, is again not a reason to have a duopoly decide what software can be made or executed in the first place. It's fine to have Google decide what the Play store will carry, and it's even fine for Android devices to require a manual bypass to run unsigned software. It's not fine for Apple and Google (and I guess Huawei by necessity) to have final arbitrary say on what software is acceptable on all handheld mobile devices.
That's the same argument people used to praise Microsoft for forcing mandatory updates.
Every year they force untested updates breaking the OS or even bricking the hardware.
And Windows is still vulnerable despite the updates.
You're right that there's value in having a software repository with "vetted" apps in it. And at the same time, there's a difference between "here's stuff we've done some kind of due diligence on" and "you aren't allowed to install anything we haven't okayed." That's what Apple and now Google are doing.
(I also think there's value in having a word like "sideload" to describe the action of installing software not in a repository. It's just that it's tied up now in this paternal attitude from the big companies)
Yep. No disagreement from me on any of that.
At most I'd argue that I don't mind that Apple does that as long as someone else does not. If Apple wants to have a closed system that's all good, but from the perspective of regulation and anti-trust you can't have EVERY platform be closed. You need at least one viable open competitor to prevent the owners of the hardware from owning all the software by definition. It's just like I don't have a problem with Nintendo needing to certify all the games on the Switch as long as there is a Steam Deck, or Sony certifying PS5 games as long as you can run games on a PC.
But if all the software on the planet had to be on either the PS5 store or the Nintendo eShop I would absolutely have a problem with those being locked down. That's what this shift means for the mobile market.
That just sounds like the system needs a separate "Admin" mode to do things like that. Your mom can take the risk of messing with that herself (which can be very educational!), or leave that for you or someone else to handle. But that would let her make a more informed choice, even without technical ability.
I argue that would be even more of a use case for the device owner to have such control.
Then you'd have rights to control which software your mom can install on the phone.
Why, in the love of all free tech support would I ever want to do that?
I swear, people just don't grasp how normies use computers. I don't want my normie relatives to have me micromanage their devices, I want their devices to be foolproof and do the five things they need to do.
That's not what I want for every device, though, so there needs to be an alternative for people who post on federated social media and performatively use open source software. If there are only two providers in a segment and both lock down all sideloading that's not acceptable, but the concept of locked down devices by itself is not.
This is not such a challenging concept. I am convinced most people in this thread would get it just fine outside of the context of having a knee-jerk reaction to the last thing they read online.
It's an option you have. Personally having to do the same thing for my family, I configure an idiot-proof setup and I don't get random calls from my parents / grandparents.
Blocking sideloading won't help you here either though. You can just leave your mom using Google play store which vets the applications on the store.
You can lock down a device security-wise without locking down a device freedom-wise.
That said, I don't think there ever will be a foolproof device, that's not realistic.
If you want to guarantee someone won't fuck up their device that's what Administration is for. That's what child controls and safety features are for.
Its not that I "don't get it" its that I've been there and done that. And I use the tools given to me to make my life better. Those tools are for managing what my normie grandparents can and can't do, because in reality, they just want to face-time their grandchildren, check emails, and print photos. But they're also targets for scammers.
No, trust me, it's that you don't get it.
What you're describing is an inordinate amount of effort and you clearly don't realize just how much. There are billions of people with billions of devices. People who can "configure an idiot-proof setup" at all are outnumbered many thousands to one.
There isn't a you to configure anything for most people with a mobile phone. That's not how that works. It either works out of the box and forever or it's broken and unusuable.
And sure, locking it down is no guarantee. People can still mess up their Apple phones, and those do like a thing and a half. Less than that without Apple's strict supervision. But this is a matter of degrees. The difference between a few of those thousands of unsupervised normies making a mistake each year and 10% of them making a mistake each year is the difference between Android being a viable platform and it being a broken mess nobody uses.
I feel like I'm weirdly relitigating every other conversation I have with people about Linux over here. It's kind of exhausting.
And to reiterate, that doesn't make Google insisting on having the ID of the author of every piece of software allowed to run on Android acceptable. It's just the difference between a reasonable objection and... not that.
maybe technology is not for everyone. but if grandpa wants to video chat with his kids, maybe it's the responsibility of the kids to help him. set up child limits or deal with the occasional problems. if grandpa cannot determine if an app is safe, they will install plenty of unsafe apps from the play store too, as google play's vetting is not nearly as good as some like to argue, so it's better for them if they just can't do so by themselves.
Nnnno.
Grandpa is not a child. Grandpa is an adult. With, you know, income and independence and a full brain. Grandpa is well within his rights to own appliances that do things grandpa doesn't fully understands but that are useful to Grandpa.
There is value for Grandpa (and for your jock brother that doesn't understand computers, this isn't an age problem) to have access to applications where he pays some company to do a thing for them. Those companies can take some of the complexity out of their hands, and Grandpa should be protected from abusive practices. It's not on Grandpa to do research on technology just to make a phone call now any more than it was for 1960s grandpas.
Yyyyes.
of course. that's out of question. However the tools provided by parental controls is what can solve this problem effectively. It's specifically for the case when the user cannot use the device responsibly for one reason or another. you set parental controls up, and now they can't break their phone.
what is the reason you think the parental controls function is not appropriate for grandpa? does it block him from doing something he should be able to do freely?
I totally agree! And with that, he is well within his rights to break his phone accidentally. the question is not that. the question is whether you want to help him avoid that. with parental controls you can allow him to do everything he needs to do.
Yes. That works if grandpa is willing to ask professionals before (or after) doing something stupid. If that applies, you don't set up parental controls for him, but allow him to do whatever.
If he is not willing to do that, he needs to be barred from breaking his phone. That's why you support google's plan, because they implement that, right?
But the problem is that they implement it ineffectively because they can still install plenty of hot garbage from the play store, and it'll make every other user's lives harder who know at least somewhat what they are doing, plus of those who are willing to give help to relatives any day. Because they either won't be able to install apps that they trust, outside of the play store, or it will come with huge consequences like making google play integrity checks fail, or these apps being restricted in what can they do.
that is why you don't implement such insanity on all phones worldwide, but only individually for those people that need this kindof stronger guidance.
who needs to do research on that? you gave him the phone, it's your job to show him how to place a call. but this point is not even relevant because google's planned limitations wouldn't do anything so that your grandpa can place a call if he doesn't know how to do that.
Hell no, I do not want to help Grandpa avoid anything. I don't want to be part of Grandpa's owning appliances at all in the first place. I have way better things to do with the little time we get to share together in this world.
And again, this hypothetical old person is not a child. I don't "allow" anything in this scenario. And even if I did, and even if I had the time or interest to run IT interference for somebody else, this solution does not scale. For every tech savvy person there are thousands of people who have never read a warning pop-up in full.
Your perception of where the onus is, how much understanding of how computers work or the usefulness of foolproof computing devices is way out of whack. And I get it, it's easy to lose perspective on this. Average familiarity and all that. But you're setting up a scenario that works just for you and not for everybody else.
So no, you are wrong, for a whole range of devices, restrictions should be the default. Absolutely. No question. This isn't even up for debate.
That's, in fact, not what is being debated, seeing how Google aren't changing install restrictions at all. The changes are more insidious and extremely bad for entirely different reasons. It is frustrating that this conversation is both being had on the wrong terms for what Google is actually doing AND showing how much even casual dwellers in tech circles misunderstand how UX needs to work to be serviceable at scale.
then why do you support this thing at all?
restrictions are the default, today and the past few years. but google here wants to make it not a default, but the only option anyone can have.
y.. yes they do?? that's exactly what they are doing!
I don't? I've said multiple times that I don't.
Can somebody tell me what's the minimum guaranteed attention span in people reading stuff online so I can crunch down any points that aren't a binary of "Down with this sort of thing/Up with this sort of thing" to not have people waste my time by knee-jerk assuming my stance without reading what I'm saying? Maybe we need AI summarization more than people say we do.
Also, this is me doing that for Google now. Best I can tell Google isn't stopping sideloading, they are stopping sideloading of unsigned apps in devices with Android security certifications.
The second caveat is irrelevant, in that uncertified devices presumably don't get Google services and the Play Store, so outside off-brand Android retro handhelds it doesn't matter. The first caveat is important, because on paper you can still install stuff from a website or F-Droid or the Samsung store or whatever but those developers will have to leave their info on record.
This isn't the full app certification you need to publish on Play Store, as far as I can tell. In their words
This is very bad for a number of reasons. Just not the reasons people are reporting.