No religion is the only good religion.
this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2026
-16 points (13.6% liked)
Progressive Politics
4601 readers
1424 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah I think this video confuses some theoretical version of Islam versus the actual version. Like Christians who ignore the actual practice of the faith and point to the parts of the Bible about love and joy.
No that's actual Islam, but yes, wahabbism and other varieties of Sunni Islam pretty much miss the mark, afaict. You know, like Western allies. Perhaps reserve Islamaphobia and maybe ask for links or go find them yourself. I did/do this with Judaism, for several years, and now I'm learning about Islam. And the wild thing is, when you ask without judgement or hostilities, people are happy to help. Elsewhere on Lemmy, we recently discussed tithes/almsgiving, and how traditions treat expectations of the very poor. Islam is very lenient with that, more lenient than many interpret Christianity to be.
Eta: and I could be misinformed about Sunni beliefs, because I haven't gotten there yet. I'm not saying that's the belief about tithing, rather that they're very strict.
Hey folks do NOT visit that site on mobile, it's repeatedly tried to download multiple APKs to my system...
Really? I haven't had that problem. What APKs?
[long string of random characters].apk
Cool? I guess my browser blocked it.
No idea what the difference is, I'm using firefox mobile with all the usual extensions fwiw.
I haven't used FF in several years.
That might explain the difference, what browser are you using?
DDG, strict permissions management.
What does happen for me is I often fat-finger, to hit one icon and get the neighboring one. But I have never seen anything remotely similar to that. At all. I wonder if it's asking you to install the app?
Ah, yeah DDG uses the google browser engines. That could easily explain the different behavior.
It appears to be trying to force the download of the tiktok .apk directly - I haven't compared the hashes but at least that's what the names indicate. But the download, and the inserting random strings into my clipboard, happens without interaction a few seconds after the page loads. It's very odd behavior to see from a legit site.
Ah, yeah DDG uses the ~~google~~ Being browser engines.
From your screenshot, you had the choice to reject. I don't know what Chinese law is about stuff like that, so I'm not going to speak on it, other than to say that firstly, I imagine it's the Chinese version of tiktok, and secondly, almost every popular social US social media, not to mention website do it, including banking sites. I don't like it, and I'm not saying it's a legitimate way of doing business, but it's certainly not any different than US websites.
Ah, yeah DDG uses the ~~google~~ Being browser engines.
I think there's confusion about what we're talking about:
- DDG the web page search engine uses the bing crawler.
- DDG the web browser, which is contemporary to firefox uses webkit and blink
Yeah, but that it's a rejectable download isn't really the issue here. That it's, unprompted, trying to get me to sideload a random .apk at all and hijacking my clipboard is the problem.
I'm curious what western social media apps have attempted to directly download the .apk onto your device - I've had plenty that throw up splash pages that redirect me to google play store, but no legitimate site has ever unprompted served me a raw .apk before. That's behavior you find on the AI slop sites that are just long strings of search terms to try and get you to click on them.
I usually get "open in app" dialogue.
Oh, very different thing. When that happens it's just asking permission for an applink query - which is just a flag that tells the user's OS to check and see if any currently installed apps are associated with a given URL and then passes it to that app if there is one.
It's very different from trying to get the user to sideload an entire app. "Open in app" is not really a threat vector, but installing random unverified .apk is the threat itself.
Google Play very much is a large threat vector. And I see it no differently than the photo you showed. At least on f-droid, the code for apps is examinable, where even if one isn't a programmer/hobbiest, they have the option of asking someone they trust to audit the code. On Google Play, you get the developer's "lol trust me, bro!"
As an example, one app consistently has hundreds of tracking attempts by a notorious, very intrusive website, and I'm extremely grateful I can see that and block it; and uninstall the app because NOT Google and NOT that (sneaky, evil, in disclosing) dev told me. Another dev of a different app did.
So the difference is, you were pre-asked and had the option to refuse.
I'm sorry, I don't think I understand what you mean here.
I kind of figured you wouldn't, based on prior interchanges, but tried anyway. No worries, enjoy your day/night.
No, it's that nobody was talking about the google play store, and while I'm certain you're trying to disagree with me you're making very salient points in my favor about the dangers of unverified closed-source apps.
You seem to understand exactly that what that site is doing is dangerous and broad strokes on why, but you're using that to... excuse their behavior.
I already said
I don't like it, and I'm not saying it's a legitimate way of doing business, but it's certainly not any different than US websites.
And
I kind of figured you wouldn't, based on prior interchanges, but tried anyway. No worries, enjoy your day/night.
/Disengage
it’s certainly not any different than US websites
But you... then explicitly go on to explain how it's different from US websites. Like you understand this, so I'm not sure why we're disagreeing here. It's fundamentally different, you even explain how it's different, we're not... disagreeing here.
I kind of figured you wouldn’t, based on prior interchanges, but tried anyway. No worries, enjoy your day/night.
It's disappointing you seem to only remember the time you were abusive and proved wrong in your accusations, but not the multiple extremely civil/pleasant interactions we've had since then.
/Disengage
This isn't a DB0 community - and even if it was, this wouldn't be a valid use of the disengage rule. see: "For a disengage call to be valid, it must not be accompanied by other arguments on the existing topic. A disengage is not meant to be a trump card to have the last word."
Don't regress these interactions and start being a dick for no reason. Seriously, this has been plenty civil until you started to get defensive about your unfamiliarity with the topic.
You are extremely disingenuous. We see it differently.
For a third time
I kind of figured you wouldn't, based on prior interchanges, but tried anyway. No worries, enjoy your day/night.
You very clearly explained exactly whats wrong with that site's (and other sites) behavior, but pivoted to that somehow excusing what they did.
For a third time
I dunno why you keep posting that, it clearly doesn't mean much to me beyond, uncharitably, showing that you're still holding a grudge? But I like to think I'm not so petty as to hang on to that.
FWIW, I see the same.
Um... this isn't misinformation. Heres one of the .apks it tries to download, the others are apparently all variations on that name - if this is just tiktok, then it's still a pretty huge problem that it's attempting to force-download itself onto my phone and is copying random stuff (the string "677e2163cbeed74442e2247e575770983c98bc9a30c649a397010bd06f476ef8" from that screenshot, there's others I'll spare you) onto my clipboard.
