this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2025
519 points (97.6% liked)

Technology

74914 readers
2869 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

Taking Google at their word for a moment, it's far too easy to scam the clueless masses into selecting the first one. Might work okay if it's strictly an ADB command, tho.

[–] Feyd@programming.dev 13 points 2 days ago

Taking Google at their word for a moment

And why should we do that?

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm inclined to think that's not the job of an OS vendor to prevent. Sure, put a warning label on it, but it's the user's device; once they say they know what they're doing, that should be that.

[–] dust_accelerator@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The implication here is, if they implement this, is that they volunteer to assume liability, should e.g., your bank account be drained despite undergoing their forced strict lockdown on paid and owned devices.

Fat chance, because laws are meaningless to crime syndicates

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

It might be a reasonable trade for users to make if Google assumed liability. In fact, that would be an interesting way to implement laws to discourage practices like these.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 4 points 2 days ago

If someone can be socially engineered into disabling security mechanisms, then that should just be their fate. There's no sense in fucking everyone else in order to protect them.

[–] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

but they could make it be google play or samsung store only as the default as a compromise

[–] SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

That would just continue to ensure lock-in, and at least the EU would never go for that (& neither would I). Sideloading should still be allowed.

Google's Play Store security has never been all that stellar, anyway.