1178
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2025
1178 points (99.1% liked)
Not The Onion
18294 readers
1610 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:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...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
view the rest of the comments
Do you have a better, simple word for what they're banning?
installing?
downloading and installing programs.
But they're not banning downloading and installing programs. What are they blocking, specifically?
They're banning programs from being installed unless the installation has their consent
Isn’t there somebody you forgot to ask?
They're banning non google-drmed app installs
regular installs of apps by unverified or suspended developers
they can still be installed by
adbwhenever I point this out to the drama queens here, they get hissy
Yes. Just looking for a simple 1-3 word term that encapsulates this
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.
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.
"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
"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.
"They" is a pronoun. Hope that helps clear things up.
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.
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?
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.
Not the question.
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
& their distinct installation methods with similar caveats
That's the entire point of the term there: to express that the installation method & checks differ.
Sign it yourself or bypass verification as stated before.
It was linked above: try reading.
which is reactive & doesn't deter the installation of malicious apps via sideload like the new feature will.
Loading non-playstore apps?
What do you call installing an application on a computer?
I say "I
apt-getit""Ownership."