dessant

34 ms·

331.
by dessant 6y ago
> And also, they put up a big sign telling everyone it's dangerous to go to North Dakota so stay out. That's such an apt analogy, considering that Google Play Protect will helpfully offer to remove sideloaded apps every chance
332.
by dessant 6y ago
Google prevents the developer of WireGuard from linking to the donation page of the project from their Android app, threatening the funding of open source apps maintained by independent developers. https://news.ycombinator.com&#x
333.
by dessant 6y ago
There are dozens of reports about YouTube removing any video mentioning the virus, including videos that were warning about the importance of masks and surface disinfection. At one point they've been conveniently purging everything not
334.
by dessant 6y ago
I was approached by Luminati on Twitter to turn my browser extensions into exit nodes, they are enticing developers to exploit users. https://i.imgur.com/EbT96an.png
335.
by dessant 6y ago
I'm aware of the blog post, but "no immediate plans" is not as reassuring as it needs to be for users to switch browsers, and for extension developers to invest in the platform. > We have no immediate plans to remove block
336.
by dessant 6y ago
Only the blocking capabilities of the webRequest API are deprecated, observing traffic remains intact in Manifest V3. Extensions will continue to enjoy access to your data, while ad blockers will have a harder time to react to the counterme
337.
by dessant 6y ago
Have you ever seen a current Google employee clearly denounce Google's privacy practices? It seems they are very loud and keen to organize when it comes to issues that closely affect them, but the mass surveillance of the general popul
338.
by dessant 6y ago
Mozilla has not yet taken a clear and supportive position on the issue of blocking with the webRequest API, though they are planning to implement Manifest V3 in some form.
339.
by dessant 6y ago
It's unfortunate that Microsoft has joined the webRequest API deprecation club, though it's not too surprising, after all they are also in the advertising business, and it makes no sense to maintain a Chromium patch that could act
340.
by dessant 6y ago
Google is hindering innovation around Chromium by refusing to merge upstream patches that may threaten their business interests, such as support for browser extensions on Android [1]. The same way no single megacorp can shape the Linux kern
341.
by dessant 6y ago
The NVIDIA Shield TV, which runs Android TV, can no longer be initialized without signing in with a Google account, the setup screen will refuse to get past that step, even if you don't have an internet connection. The forced login is
342.
by dessant 6y ago
> C.) Their systems have now classified you as a scammer and you are now irredemable. The mistakes Google's automated systems and reviewers make can cause lasting damage, even if your app or channel is reinstated after public outcry
343.
by dessant 6y ago
In all honesty Satan himself could have sued Apple for all we care, what's important now is that there is someone who has the resources and willingness to fight for our right to sideload apps on our own devices.
344.
by dessant 6y ago
I've been getting bug reports for a browser extension because of Snap. The file system isolation of Snap and Flatpak breaks Native Messaging, so extensions that need to communicate with a local app, such as password managers, are now b
345.
by dessant 6y ago
> People can download appstore apps without worry We should be given a choice to worry or not, and to do it independently from the App Store.
346.
by dessant 6y ago
We have the freedom to express ourselves by giving Apple $99/yr to share our open source apps, apps which ultimately further enrich their platform. If you are poor and have been donated an iPhone, then express yourself somewhere else.
347.
by dessant 6y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20200902171741/https://papersple...
348.
by dessant 6y ago
The linked article clearly demonstrates that running apps without notarization on macOS is much more complicated than you describe it to be, to the point of it feeling insurmountable for less technical users. Perhaps you've configured
349.
by dessant 6y ago
It's astonishing that the developer community is fine with requiring open source projects to pay $99/yr for notarization to run on macOS. Malware authors will happily pay the developer account fees, as seen here, while open source
350.
by dessant 6y ago
> I do not understand why the author waited so long to disclose and also feels that Google deserves a "stellar job" here. Because people are afraid of megacorps. They've found the courage to disclose the issue, but they&#x
351.
by dessant 6y ago
I agree that Apple should be free to make their own rules on the App Store, but because of the lack of sideloading, some of the rules they enforce eliminate legitimate apps from the iOS platform, not just malware, and they can destroy busin
352.
by dessant 6y ago
People can have devices without explicitly choosing them, or understanding the consequences if they get to have a choice, and the rights of those people are needlessly restricted.
353.
by dessant 6y ago
Are you arguing that because of the current possibility to install apps from third-party sources that might turn out to be malware, Windows should only allow installing apps from the Windows Store? Should we no longer be able to run softwar
354.
by dessant 6y ago
This argument keeps being repeated, and it's basically just "if you don't like it, find a different platform". Do you think that's how our rights should be preserved, by hopping to places and platforms that respect
355.
by dessant 6y ago
The main issue is not the app review process, but the missing alternatives to the App Store on iPhones, and I think arguing about more just App Store rules is not the solution, but a distraction to our eroding right to control our own devic
356.
by dessant 6y ago
You seem to not be interested in living with your right to install any app you want on your device, which is fine. But do you also believe that other people should not have the right to install software that has not been blessed by an autho
357.
by dessant 6y ago
Depending on jurisdiction, booting a paying customer in this manner can be illegal, and the terms of service cannot be used as a shield for breaking the law. Encouraging others to stand up for their rights in not a uniquely American trait.
358.
by dessant 6y ago
GitHub apps are hosted services, and I maintain a public instance on a server. I obviously wouldn't ban them, but it is in my right, and this has nothing to do with the license of the project. I've meant to illustrate how abusive
359.
by dessant 6y ago
It looks like the CEO of Ghost has a history of booting customers when they criticize them in public. https://twitter.com/adbertram/status/1148165765629128704
360.
by dessant 6y ago
They've terminated the customer's account before the 7 day upgrade window has lapsed, which has caused disruption to their business.

More ›