11 ms·

I co-develop a FOSS VPN-based (tcp/udp) firewall for Android. The original policy is documented here: https://web.archive.org/web/20220818100735/https://suppor

I co-develop a FOSS VPN-based (tcp/udp) firewall for Android. The original policy is documented here: https://web.archive.org/web/20220818100735/https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/12253906?hl=en https://web.archive.org/web/20220818100735/https://support.g... What the post misses is Google has exceptions for: - Parental control and enterprise management apps. - App usage tracking. - Device security apps (for example, anti-virus, mobile device management, firewall). - Network related tools (for example, remote access). - Web browsing apps. - Carrier apps that require the use of VPN functionality to provide telephony or connectivity services. The part where manipulation of ad-based monetization isn't allowed has always been there in one form or another. A firewall can also be used to firewall ads/trackers though, and so it remains to be seen what Google makes of such apps (there are plenty!) come November (supposed deadline for compliance). Blokada v5 (and below), otoh, isn't a firewall, but a UDP-only DNS client.

raxxorraxor 4y ago
I think having exceptions for that is an extremely severe security flaw. Kudos to you for developing something like this, but honestly even with a solid firewall leveraging VPN I would not trust crapware like Android or iOS with anything substantial. We have reached ridiculous levels of paternalism from pretty crappy companies.
wTj8yqRLkg7Dfsp 4y ago
> Ads that appear ... during the beginning of a content segment are not allowed. > Here are some examples of common violations: Unexpected ads that appear ... during the beginning of a content segment (for example, after a user has clicked on a button, and before the action intended by the button click has taken effect). These ads are unexpected for users, as users expect to ... engage in content instead. ??? isn't this like... incredibly and blatantly anti-competitive considering that their own app (Youtube), which they still offer on said store, does this?
- smileybarry 4y ago
  Not entirely, I think they mean ads in games between "new game"/"next level" and the game/level starting. Free games are filled with them. Pre-roll ads in video apps like YouTube are different.
  - aliqot 4y ago
    It's funny how generations vacillate between "id pay for this" and "id watch ads if this were free" but neither is actually the correct answer as there seems to just be an a/b switch between the two groups and sentiments regardless of which path is chosen.
    - detaro 4y ago
      In what way do you think this aligns with generations? (I don't really see a generational thing)
      - aliqot 4y ago
        Generations was not being used in an age-related context.
- tssva 4y ago
  You are glossing over an important word in your quote, "unexpected". YouTube ads maybe unwanted but they aren't unexpected ads. 3rd party apps are allowed to have similar expected ads.
tssva 4y ago
You left off an important part of the exception statement. "Exceptions include apps that require a remote server for core functionality such as:" It is followed by the list you posted above. This is completely in line with the original post which states that their prior version which did on device filtering would be banned and their current version which works in conjunction with a remote server to perform the filtering would be allowed.
- ignoramous 4y ago
  > This is completely in line with the original post which states that their prior version which did on device filtering would be banned and their current version which works in conjunction with a remote server to perform the filtering would be allowed. On-device filtering was never allowed. For as long as I can remember, it has always been against Play Store terms of use. That part isn't new at all. Though, it could very well be that Google may come down with stringent / permanent bans on VPN-based apps starting November (they, notoriously, only allow two violations before permanently banning a developer account; in some instances, developers have gotten two strikes at once, leaving them unable to appeal).

raxxorraxor 4y ago

I think having exceptions for that is an extremely severe security flaw. Kudos to you for developing something like this, but honestly even with a solid firewall leveraging VPN I would not trust crapware like Android or iOS with anything substantial. We have reached ridiculous levels of paternalism from pretty crappy companies.

wTj8yqRLkg7Dfsp 4y ago

> Ads that appear ... during the beginning of a content segment are not allowed. > Here are some examples of common violations: Unexpected ads that appear ... during the beginning of a content segment (for example, after a user has clicked on a button, and before the action intended by the button click has taken effect). These ads are unexpected for users, as users expect to ... engage in content instead. ??? isn't this like... incredibly and blatantly anti-competitive considering that their own app (Youtube), which they still offer on said store, does this?

smileybarry 4y ago
Not entirely, I think they mean ads in games between "new game"/"next level" and the game/level starting. Free games are filled with them. Pre-roll ads in video apps like YouTube are different.
- aliqot 4y ago
  It's funny how generations vacillate between "id pay for this" and "id watch ads if this were free" but neither is actually the correct answer as there seems to just be an a/b switch between the two groups and sentiments regardless of which path is chosen.
  - detaro 4y ago
    In what way do you think this aligns with generations? (I don't really see a generational thing)
    - aliqot 4y ago
      Generations was not being used in an age-related context.
tssva 4y ago
You are glossing over an important word in your quote, "unexpected". YouTube ads maybe unwanted but they aren't unexpected ads. 3rd party apps are allowed to have similar expected ads.

tssva 4y ago

You left off an important part of the exception statement. "Exceptions include apps that require a remote server for core functionality such as:" It is followed by the list you posted above. This is completely in line with the original post which states that their prior version which did on device filtering would be banned and their current version which works in conjunction with a remote server to perform the filtering would be allowed.

ignoramous 4y ago
> This is completely in line with the original post which states that their prior version which did on device filtering would be banned and their current version which works in conjunction with a remote server to perform the filtering would be allowed. On-device filtering was never allowed. For as long as I can remember, it has always been against Play Store terms of use. That part isn't new at all. Though, it could very well be that Google may come down with stringent / permanent bans on VPN-based apps starting November (they, notoriously, only allow two violations before permanently banning a developer account; in some instances, developers have gotten two strikes at once, leaving them unable to appeal).