Comment on Google's plan to restrict sideloading on Android has a potential escape hatch for users

• EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  By justifying getting rid of it as “security concerns”. This is the first time the average user will have heard the term, so it will be linked in their head to this and therefore as risky/dangerous and they won’t question why Google would want to make it harder, if not impossible, for people to install apps or other software without Google’s explicit permission.

  The walls around the garden get taller, and those inside won’t question why there aren’t any doors.

  source

  • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    By justifying getting rid of it as “security concerns”.

    That has absolutely nothing to do with what you said. What you said is that they were “twisting the word”. Once again, they’re using it in exactly the way it is intended to be used.

    source

    • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      So it’s always had a negative connotation to it? Because that’s what I’m saying. That Google is using the word by its correct definition, but adding to the original definition a subtext that side loading is a bad thing. Hence, they’re twisting it from its original meaning to a negative connotation to the average person (who has never heard the word before).

      It’s like Windows’ UAC popping up with a warning when you try to install just about anything. To the average computer illiterate person, they’re going to second guess whatever they’re installing as “dangerous” while the rest of us are like “shut up Windows, of course I want to install the Nvidia drivers, that’s why I clicked on the damn thing.”

      source