this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2025
1177 points (99.2% liked)

Not The Onion

18294 readers
1611 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 127 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Federated solutions which can't be stopped, self hosted, and available via Fdroid.

Only real answer.

[–] wagesj45@fedia.io 93 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Until Google revokes publishing privileges for side-loading applications. I think we'll have to go further and get used to making PWAs and regular websites.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 85 points 4 days ago (2 children)

side-loading

You mean "installing normally." "Sideloading" is fucking anti-property-rights loaded language.

[–] Captainvaqina@sh.itjust.works 34 points 4 days ago

Good point. Wild how these ghouls have normalized their bullshit language.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 4 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Do you have a better, simple word for what they're banning?

[–] Gold_E_Lox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 4 days ago (1 children)

installing?

downloading and installing programs.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl -5 points 4 days ago (2 children)

But they're not banning downloading and installing programs. What are they blocking, specifically?

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 18 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

They're banning programs from being installed unless the installation has their consent

[–] Jakule17@lemmy.world 10 points 4 days ago

Isn’t there somebody you forgot to ask?

They're banning non google-drmed app installs

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

regular installs of apps by unverified or suspended developers

they can still be installed by

whenever I point this out to the drama queens here, they get hissy

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yes. Just looking for a simple 1-3 word term that encapsulates this

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

It's not a suggestion for an alternative. Sideloading is not even blocked: unblocked apps remain sideloadable. Sideloading is not "fucking anti-property-rights loaded language" & the word existed a while before Android OS.

They're just being uninformed drama-queens as usual.

[–] sexhaver87@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

It is a fairly loaded word, implying it's an alternative method of loading data to the primary, more actively vendor-supported method. Those methods you previously mentioned are actively subverting the primary application install methods (Google Play) and are 1 minor software update from being completely axed. Name-calling an opposing "they" is not quite productive.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Name-calling an opposing “they”

"They" is now a dirty word?

Sideload wasn't loaded language before Android OS and still isn't: it's a bogus, overreactive claim.

All of them are valid install methods. Developers will always need a way to load their experimental apps not yet suitable for release: they won't block the methods they need to do that.

Clear use cases for casual users exist for

  • deterring them from installing software by bad actors that's known to be malicious
  • verifying non-malicious software hasn't been modified possibly maliciously before installing it.

"They" are drama-queens, because despite legitimate use cases to address actual problems posing high-cost risks to users (even as Google turns out to be a shitty authority) & clear documentation that power users can still install any package they want, they choose to catastrophize.

[–] sexhaver87@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

"They" is a pronoun. Hope that helps clear things up.

Sideload wasn’t loaded language before Android OS and still isn’t: it’s a bogus, overreactive claim.

The term "sideload" was coined by i-drive, a bunk dot-com contributor who applied to trademark the term because they were corporate ghouls. Their version of sideloading involved giving them a link to a file on the internet, and they would store it for you, so you didn't have to download it yourself. The idea behind sideloading is just transferring a fucking file. It's loaded language, despite whatever freedom or restrictions an implementation provides. Call it what it is, a file transfer.

Clear use cases for casual users exist for

What about the clear use case for a FOSS developer who doesn't want to go through the Google authority for validation? What happens when Google thinks an app is dangerous when it shows no clear malicious behavior? What happens when Google enforces the idea that blocking ads is malicious?

(even as Google turns out to be a shitty authority)

In my opinion, what a massive understatement.

Edit: Put the documentation where your mouth is. Show me the "clear documentation that power users can still install any package they want," because F-Droid would like to have a word with you. While you're reading that, do take care to note that Google already has a service to protect against malicious applications. They don't need to limit application installs based on developer registration. They need to make a profit for their shareholders. They're corporate ghouls.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 1 day ago

“They” is a pronoun.

Not the question.

It’s loaded language

Nothing you wrote supports that. In the i-drive case, it draws a distinction between a (1) direct transfer between remote systems (without intermediary) and (2) a transfer between a local & remote system.

Other OSs have this concept. My first exposure to the concept came from administering Windows systems. Their definition draws an unopinionated distinction between official & unofficial distribution channels

Sideloading apps is when you install apps that aren't from an official source, such as the Microsoft Store. Your organization can create its own apps, including line-of-business (LOB) apps.

& their distinct installation methods with similar caveats

When you enable sideloading, you allow installing and running apps from outside the Microsoft Store. This action might increase security risks to the device and your data. Sideloaded apps need to be signed with a certificate that the device trusts.

That's the entire point of the term there: to express that the installation method & checks differ.

What about the clear use case for a FOSS developer who doesn’t want to go through the Google authority for validation?

Sign it yourself or bypass verification as stated before.

Show me the “clear documentation that power users can still install any package they want,”

It was linked above: try reading.

Google already has a service to protect against malicious applications

which is reactive & doesn't deter the installation of malicious apps via sideload like the new feature will.

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 6 points 4 days ago

Loading non-playstore apps?

[–] kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What do you call installing an application on a computer?

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I say "I apt-get it"

[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago
[–] freeman@sh.itjust.works 9 points 4 days ago

Allow vendors to completely control what apps run on your phone and banning websites and PWAs becomes trivial for them. Browsers are apps.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Google started using buzzwords of sideloading as to make a boogeyman security issue, to get people to side with them. its just installing, other than thier main store.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 3 days ago

sideloading existed long before mobile OSs

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 days ago (3 children)

I can't believe Steve Jobs was right all along.

[–] skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 4 days ago

Right? A well protected browser is about the best tool in this shi-nternet future.

Back before iOS had apps, webapp devs were clever AF. There was Beejive web for multi-IM and all sorts of clever stuff.

One can still put an icon for webapps on the home screen, and the OS even displays it as a full screen app. (Android has similar but not as elegant.)

[–] commander@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago

Steve Jobs just didn't have the right foresight. PWA's were a solution when the web was supposed to be the future of applications distribution. If he knew native apps were still the future and in app advertising and microtransactions were going to be where all was at, he would never have pushed PWA's. Steve was a salesman first and foremost

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 11 points 4 days ago

He believed if he made quality products, that the stock price increases all the soulless capitalists demanded would follow. Which of course they did. Then Tim Apple took over, and quality went out the window in favor of stock buybacks. Kind of like Boeing.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 3 points 4 days ago (2 children)

They can only do that to phones running gapps

[–] ErmahgherdDavid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

The issue with this is that like 95% of android devices run android with gapps and re-imaging your phone is becoming increasingly more difficult as manufacturers lock down their bootloaders. Normies who aren't technical are not gonna want to mess with that shit. I'm not saying this to instill hopelessness but highlighting that it's a challenge.

For censorship circumvention, mainstream tech is gonna continue to be increasingly useless. We need to educate people about these matters and also try to encourage people to lean heavily into decentralised comms like lora/meshtastic

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

All phones run gapps by default, other than those in Mainland China, that is.

[–] Anivia@feddit.org 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Not just China, also common in south America. Huawei still has a large market share there and their phones don't have gapps since Trump banned American companies from doing business with Huawei

[–] chaosCruiser@futurology.today 5 points 3 days ago

How about web apps or even regular sites with a mobile friendly UI?