- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- lobsters
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- lobsters
You must log in or register to comment.
Sideloading means not being forced to use the monopoly provider.
Why can’t we ever have nice things for more than about 10–15 years. 😭
Ask Cory Doctorow, he has good answers well beyond that one term he coined.
Sorry, you lost me. What term?
enshittification
Does this mean sideloading is going away on Android? Absolutely not. Sideloading is fundamental to Android and it is not going away.
This statement is untrue. The developer verification decree effectively ends the ability for individuals to choose what software they run on the devices they own.
…
Wikipedia’s summary definition is:
the transfer of apps from web sources that are not vendor-approved
By this definition, Google’s statement that “sideloading is not going away” is simply false. The vendor — Google, in the case of Android certified devices — will, in point of fact, be approving the source. The supplicant app developer must register with Google, pay a fee, provide government identification, agree to non-negotiable (and ever-changing) terms and conditions, enumerate all their current and future application identifiers, upload evidence of their private signing key, and then hope and wait for Google’s approval.
I’m glad to see this bullshit called out.
Whole thing is well worth a read, but just from the title alone I was ready to write a long rant about the term ‘sideloading’. Gladly that’s covered on the text too:
It bears reminding that “sideload” is a made-up term. Putting software on your computer is simply called “installing”, regardless of whether that computer is in your pocket or on your desk.
It’s really a pet peeve of mine, that term. So typical for what Google/Alphabet is doing to control the narrative around what’s “secure” and what isn’t.
That’s exactly what’s going on here. Narrative / concepts are in stake here. By controlling the narrative you can influence or alter the perception of people about things.
I’m not sure why Google just doesn’t track who opts out of Play Store protections to side load and then refuse to support anything further. Power users will be happy, they’re power users. Grannies have been warned. Where’s the problem?
Block by default, opt out of blocking explicitly. Give users that choice. If I want to riddle my phone with viruses and bitcoin miners that’s my problem.
This was never about security. That’s just the excuse.
This is about removing user freedom, and consolidating corporate control. This is about ensuring that every app and service you use is approved by the big G, and consumed in the way they want - with ads, with tracking, and with nothing you can do about it.
This was never about security. That’s just the excuse.
Every technical decision is an excuse to fulfill a social desire.
There was a time when I was 14 and happy and saw such things in everything around me, and all the fiction I was reading often touched that trait of the surrounding reality. Those books are not considered something for intellectuals or artists, and I have nothing to discuss with such people - that is, strictly speaking not true, but I never know why some things I know and mention are interesting or not, and why some my opinions meet hearty agreement and some are politely ignored. And I never find continuations for those agreements and interests. But I feel as if that planted something deep in my head that has endured all the degradation.
So. You should also look at things where it seems that technical decisions were made for technical reasons.
The desktop paradigms, the platform paradigms, the OS paradigms, the ergonomics, - of course. But also aesthetics and visibility, how separate or mixed with the offscreen reality everything is. Also why the Internet is built as it is, why multi-user operating systems and Java really exist, what really is Unix and what really is Windows. About software design and why what embedded developers make when allowed is considered bad design, while what web developers make is considered rather good design, yet the former is usually more stable, secure and maintainable than the latter.
Not just software, but why is our consumer hardware is what it is, what do we need such complex systems for.
Not just computers, but construction design - the world now is very different from the world where that brutalist idea of making apartment buildings having a terrace as a “street” to which you have another exit from your apartment was bad due to all the crime. And also there are plenty of covered passages and malls with the same idea, except the framework building is always privately owned, having a different juridical status than a street or a bridge. While Soviet-style microdistricts, and things similar to them, are similarly bad due to crime, yet honestly the “right and good” modern European urbanism moves in that direction.
All the choices around us are made by humans, driven by social stimuli - that’s the meaning of the word “social”, all the stimuli are there, and economics and technology act more like framework of the possible for the social.
Give users that choice
That’s the one thing they want to get rid of. Security and other bullshit is just a theater around it to get validation for even bigger walls for their garden.
