Are there people who are angry out of principle/ideologically but who don’t do sideloading etc? Because, I’d like to think that if you are angry enough at this, then you have the incentive and the will to root you phone (making it an unsupported device and making it NOT locked for sideloading) and go on with your life. I wish Google died like… Yesterday. Don’t get me wrong. Am I missing something?
You make it sound like rooting is a simple opt-in. It is not. It is not possible on every phone, requires technical expertise, risks bricking your device, you will likely loose firmware update support, various apps (like banking apps) will stop working. It is a tough choice.
You’re right. At the very least, users shouldn’t be forced to make this choice. It’s absurd how little authority we have over devices we have paid for with our hard earned money. :(
Which just seems stupid. Smartphone is a computer. When you want to run something as administrator on Windows, it’s just a Yes/No prompt away, and Windows isn’t some small thing either.
I agree. People that lack the technical expertise or rooting compatible devices shouldn’t be forced to even consider this. Once you have paid for a device, you should be allowed to do with it whatever the hell you want, without Google or other big tech shoving unsolicited policies down your throat.
I make sure to only buy phones that can be rooted. This change still irks me, because it’s just another notch on the slide toward control and surveillance under the guise of security theater. If AI winds up being as effective as prognosticated, perhaps it’s less theater and more valid. Script kitties could then do a lot of damage.
My concern with sliding toward surveillance is rooted in principle, FOSS ideals that seek to empower users rather than plug them into a matrix. I admit that my idealism is likely naive, depending upon the realities of burgeoning technologies. In any case, I will continue to choose software that allows me to carefully curate what information reaches my brain. I’m in a weird place where I long for transparency, but I have little trust in existing systems. I want the world to be more open and less insular, yet I oppose recent pushes to force identification by limiting user choice. It feels rapacious; I need to trust the system sufficiently in order to consent. A society built upon trust would be far more resilient than one built upon coercion. Coercion is where I draw the line in most areas of life.
Are there people who are angry out of principle/ideologically but who don’t do sideloading etc? Because, I’d like to think that if you are angry enough at this, then you have the incentive and the will to root you phone (making it an unsupported device and making it NOT locked for sideloading) and go on with your life. I wish Google died like… Yesterday. Don’t get me wrong. Am I missing something?
You make it sound like rooting is a simple opt-in. It is not. It is not possible on every phone, requires technical expertise, risks bricking your device, you will likely loose firmware update support, various apps (like banking apps) will stop working. It is a tough choice.
It is possible on every Google phone.
You’re right. At the very least, users shouldn’t be forced to make this choice. It’s absurd how little authority we have over devices we have paid for with our hard earned money. :(
Which just seems stupid. Smartphone is a computer. When you want to run something as administrator on Windows, it’s just a Yes/No prompt away, and Windows isn’t some small thing either.
not all phones can be rooted nowadays, and when ot can it has other disadvantages too that the current method of avoiding play store does not have
I agree. People that lack the technical expertise or rooting compatible devices shouldn’t be forced to even consider this. Once you have paid for a device, you should be allowed to do with it whatever the hell you want, without Google or other big tech shoving unsolicited policies down your throat.
I make sure to only buy phones that can be rooted. This change still irks me, because it’s just another notch on the slide toward control and surveillance under the guise of security theater. If AI winds up being as effective as prognosticated, perhaps it’s less theater and more valid. Script kitties could then do a lot of damage.
My concern with sliding toward surveillance is rooted in principle, FOSS ideals that seek to empower users rather than plug them into a matrix. I admit that my idealism is likely naive, depending upon the realities of burgeoning technologies. In any case, I will continue to choose software that allows me to carefully curate what information reaches my brain. I’m in a weird place where I long for transparency, but I have little trust in existing systems. I want the world to be more open and less insular, yet I oppose recent pushes to force identification by limiting user choice. It feels rapacious; I need to trust the system sufficiently in order to consent. A society built upon trust would be far more resilient than one built upon coercion. Coercion is where I draw the line in most areas of life.