354
Google is requiring mandatory developer verification for all Android apps in 2026
(keepandroidopen.org)
If you haven't seen this yet, Google is planning to require mandatory developer identity verification for all Android apps, including apps distributed outside the Play Store, taking effect September 2026. This affects every independent and open source Android developer directly.
This is not just about the Play Store. After September 2026, on any certified Android device, applications from unverified developers will be blocked by default. The only proposed bypass, the "advanced flow", exists only as a blog post and has not appeared in any beta, dev preview, or canary release. No one outside Google has seen it.
The community has been fighting back at keepandroidopen.org:
- Read the full breakdown of what this means
- Sign the open letter (organisations only)
- Contact your national regulators — contacts listed by country on the site
- Add the countdown banner to your project
September 2026 is closer than it looks. The time to push back is now.
You don't need to wait for confirmation someone else is doing x before doing x yourself. Take the first step!
In fairness, plenty of actors are taking steps in doing x, aka, mobile Linux operating systems. It's difficult as fuck, even for those with lots of experience, in ways that primarily boil down to the proprietary nature of smartphone communications infrastructure because of companies that have taken actions similar to Google, and then were supported by overreaching legislation. (From what I understand)
This shit runs so deep and has been running for so long, but we've only recently started hearing more about ongoing projects because of the flagrant privacy violations surrounding us. Just because so many of us only recently started paying attention, myself included, doesn't mean that these solutions are new.
I'm confused about what point you're making here. @kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com is asking for recommendations. How do they "take the first step" when they have no idea what's good? Especially when they're talking to someone who seems to already know which ones are good, and it's very easy to ask their knowledgeable opinion.
You're assuming kbobabob is asking that question in good faith, while thenoirwolfess seems to believe they might be asking in bad faith (i.e., rhetorically asking as a "call out" because they assume leftascenter isn't actually supporting a GNU phone project)
Oh. Well if you're right, then I just double down. That's a shitty thing to do. Assuming bad faith tends to be the sign of someone who themselves acts in bad faith. The first comment asked a reasonable question and there was no rational basis on which to assume it was anything other than sincere.
Indeed, I assumed sarcasm, and replied as if kbobabob was sincere and honestly thinking of supporting a GNU project but would only support whichever ones leftascenter are supporting. My own bias played a part in my interpretation, as I believe that at this point any community GNU project is a worthy project.
Language and emotions are complex aha