4 ms·

I think you're dismissing legitimate concerns without fully understanding them, because through the right lens you realize how this can be anticompetitive in th

I think you're dismissing legitimate concerns without fully understanding them, because through the right lens you realize how this can be anticompetitive in the mass market. Even if some technically inclined folk can install what they want, the masses will stay in the walled garden so that Google can get their cut and exert ideological control. Even now, both Google and Apple engage in practices across their product that are designed to scare people away from third party applications. From Google's terminology when describing Google in banners as "a more secure browser" etc, to Apple requiring a secret incantation in order to run unsigned apps. All of this kind of mind control bullshit should be eradicated via regulation. Companies should not have a license to be deceptive towards their users.

Klonoar 1y ago
The comment you're responding to includes the line: > The move, developed in partnership with Singapore’s Cyber Security Agency, is designed to prevent fraud and malware-enabled scams. Your comment seems to disregard it and instead lay this entirely at Google's feet as if they're seeking anti-competitive behavior - but if this was driven by a government, does Google really deserve all the blame? (Note that I am explicitly not endorsing the move. I think sideloading should be left mostly untouched.)
- card_zero 1y ago
  > partnership Could mean anything from reluctant to opportunistic.
- azalemeth 1y ago
  Singapore is far from a nation known for free speech or to pick the side of liberty should it come into conflict with security. I've no doubt whatsoever that approved apps on a CTS "hardware backed" remote attestation phone is more secure. It's also possible to remotely own such a device unambiguously, and provides a central place where apps can be taken offline. It's win win from the point of view of a security agency. It's not from mine.
- soulofmischief 1y ago
  > Your comment seems to disregard it Because it's irrelevant. > but if this was driven by a government, does Google really deserve all the blame? Of course. If the government ordered Google to assist in a genocide against some demographic, and Google goes along with it, it doesn't matter if the government is also evil. Google is evil for playing ball. And we don't have to speak in hypotheticals. Both Google and Amazon are actively engaging in tech-assisted genocide. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/23/what-is-project-nimbus-and-why-are-google-workers-protesting-israel-deal https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/23/what-is-project-nim... I have boycotted Amazon for a while now and I'd boycott Google too if it wasn't so pervasive in my professional life.
  - redavni 1y ago
    When you understand that this is not literally the truth, but is actually still true.
    - soulofmischief 1y ago
      I'm not sure what you're talking about, mind elaborating?
      - redavni 1y ago
        I would love to, but this is the wrong forum. This is going to sound weird if you understand these events purely literally, but me and you are ideologically aligned, but not dialectically aligned. There is a much greater truth to this entire situation.
        soulofmischief 1y ago
        And what is that truth?
- HeatrayEnjoyer 1y ago
  Google has already been weighed and found guilty of creating and persisting systemic anti competitive policy.
- m4rtink 1y ago
  Isn't the Singapore government pretty authoritarian? They might have other motivation than just pure user security.
mschuster91 1y ago
> All of this kind of mind control bullshit should be eradicated via regulation. Companies should not have a license to be deceptive towards their users. I agree with you. However, the impact of scams should not be underestimated either.
- soulofmischief 1y ago
  To me it seems like fighting teen pregnancy by preaching abstinence. We should be teaching a higher baseline of computer literacy, and providing more secure systems that keep the user in control and in the know when it comes to their own device and the software running on it. Attacking the problem by reducing user freedoms and increasingly monopolistic control is not the answer, even though Google's PR department would tell you otherwise.
  - nazcan 1y ago
    As far as I know the reason you don't preach abstinence, beyond enforcing your morals, is that it is not effective. So the question on if this effectively reduce scams is the first question to answer.
    - soulofmischief 1y ago
      Yeah, it's definitely a piece to the puzzle. I still think it's not so hard to prove that increasingly technical literacy, outlawing deceptive UX and language that prey on information asymmetry, and providing increased autonomy with more fine-grained and visible security controls is a net win for the population, whether or not this particular method of Google's is effective enough against spam compared to some baseline.
      - AstralStorm 1y ago
        Agreed. Android already has seriously big whitelisting requirement for installing applications from outside the Google Play store. The correct way to do it would be to whitelist other good stores, and allow developer mode installs with an extra process that says explicitly I am extra sure this may be danger, but no. This would reduce Google's income streams. The way I see it, it must be attacked the way default Internet Explorer was attacked.
SoftTalker 1y ago
The masses will always stay in the walled garden. It's where they want to be and they don't even realize there are walls. It is just what is for them.
- EvanAnderson 1y ago
  > The masses will always stay in the walled garden. It's where they want to be and they don't even realize there are walls. It is just what is for them. The walls should have open doors, though, versus prison bars. Physical switches on devices (much like older Chromebook devices had) used to opt out of the walled garden should be mandated by consumer protection regulations.
  - tuckerman 1y ago
    It's not entirely unlike the qualified/accredited investor rules which won't let you invest in unregulated securities without income/net worth/certification requirements. No form exists which would allow someone to say "hey, I get why these wall are here, but I understand and am opting out of your protection". I personally think there should be (I value individual rights/freedom over preventing someone from harming themselves), but I also see why we ended up here. When bad things happen, people demand action and government wants to be seen as doing something.
    - AstralStorm 1y ago
      Really, we're talking Singapore, which is one of the most restrictive places in the world. Have the EU counterbalance this closing with extra fines for anticompetitive behavior.
  - abletonlive 1y ago
    > Physical switches on devices (much like older Chromebook devices had) used to opt out of the walled garden should be mandated by consumer protection regulations. I don’t want to live in the same society as the person that wrote this asinine comment with this much confidence. We are just ideologically incompatible

Klonoar 1y ago

The comment you're responding to includes the line: > The move, developed in partnership with Singapore’s Cyber Security Agency, is designed to prevent fraud and malware-enabled scams. Your comment seems to disregard it and instead lay this entirely at Google's feet as if they're seeking anti-competitive behavior - but if this was driven by a government, does Google really deserve all the blame? (Note that I am explicitly not endorsing the move. I think sideloading should be left mostly untouched.)

card_zero 1y ago
> partnership Could mean anything from reluctant to opportunistic.
azalemeth 1y ago
Singapore is far from a nation known for free speech or to pick the side of liberty should it come into conflict with security. I've no doubt whatsoever that approved apps on a CTS "hardware backed" remote attestation phone is more secure. It's also possible to remotely own such a device unambiguously, and provides a central place where apps can be taken offline. It's win win from the point of view of a security agency. It's not from mine.
soulofmischief 1y ago
> Your comment seems to disregard it Because it's irrelevant. > but if this was driven by a government, does Google really deserve all the blame? Of course. If the government ordered Google to assist in a genocide against some demographic, and Google goes along with it, it doesn't matter if the government is also evil. Google is evil for playing ball. And we don't have to speak in hypotheticals. Both Google and Amazon are actively engaging in tech-assisted genocide. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/23/what-is-project-nimbus-and-why-are-google-workers-protesting-israel-deal https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/23/what-is-project-nim... I have boycotted Amazon for a while now and I'd boycott Google too if it wasn't so pervasive in my professional life.
- redavni 1y ago
  When you understand that this is not literally the truth, but is actually still true.
  - soulofmischief 1y ago
    I'm not sure what you're talking about, mind elaborating?
    - redavni 1y ago
      I would love to, but this is the wrong forum. This is going to sound weird if you understand these events purely literally, but me and you are ideologically aligned, but not dialectically aligned. There is a much greater truth to this entire situation.
      - soulofmischief 1y ago
        And what is that truth?
HeatrayEnjoyer 1y ago
Google has already been weighed and found guilty of creating and persisting systemic anti competitive policy.
m4rtink 1y ago
Isn't the Singapore government pretty authoritarian? They might have other motivation than just pure user security.

mschuster91 1y ago

> All of this kind of mind control bullshit should be eradicated via regulation. Companies should not have a license to be deceptive towards their users. I agree with you. However, the impact of scams should not be underestimated either.

soulofmischief 1y ago
To me it seems like fighting teen pregnancy by preaching abstinence. We should be teaching a higher baseline of computer literacy, and providing more secure systems that keep the user in control and in the know when it comes to their own device and the software running on it. Attacking the problem by reducing user freedoms and increasingly monopolistic control is not the answer, even though Google's PR department would tell you otherwise.
- nazcan 1y ago
  As far as I know the reason you don't preach abstinence, beyond enforcing your morals, is that it is not effective. So the question on if this effectively reduce scams is the first question to answer.
  - soulofmischief 1y ago
    Yeah, it's definitely a piece to the puzzle. I still think it's not so hard to prove that increasingly technical literacy, outlawing deceptive UX and language that prey on information asymmetry, and providing increased autonomy with more fine-grained and visible security controls is a net win for the population, whether or not this particular method of Google's is effective enough against spam compared to some baseline.
    - AstralStorm 1y ago
      Agreed. Android already has seriously big whitelisting requirement for installing applications from outside the Google Play store. The correct way to do it would be to whitelist other good stores, and allow developer mode installs with an extra process that says explicitly I am extra sure this may be danger, but no. This would reduce Google's income streams. The way I see it, it must be attacked the way default Internet Explorer was attacked.

SoftTalker 1y ago

The masses will always stay in the walled garden. It's where they want to be and they don't even realize there are walls. It is just what is for them.

EvanAnderson 1y ago
> The masses will always stay in the walled garden. It's where they want to be and they don't even realize there are walls. It is just what is for them. The walls should have open doors, though, versus prison bars. Physical switches on devices (much like older Chromebook devices had) used to opt out of the walled garden should be mandated by consumer protection regulations.
- tuckerman 1y ago
  It's not entirely unlike the qualified/accredited investor rules which won't let you invest in unregulated securities without income/net worth/certification requirements. No form exists which would allow someone to say "hey, I get why these wall are here, but I understand and am opting out of your protection". I personally think there should be (I value individual rights/freedom over preventing someone from harming themselves), but I also see why we ended up here. When bad things happen, people demand action and government wants to be seen as doing something.
  - AstralStorm 1y ago
    Really, we're talking Singapore, which is one of the most restrictive places in the world. Have the EU counterbalance this closing with extra fines for anticompetitive behavior.
- abletonlive 1y ago
  > Physical switches on devices (much like older Chromebook devices had) used to opt out of the walled garden should be mandated by consumer protection regulations. I don’t want to live in the same society as the person that wrote this asinine comment with this much confidence. We are just ideologically incompatible