Alexia Aug 25, 2025
www.androidauthority.com/android-developer-verification-requirements-3590911/

I must reiterate. I really like open systems.

This is the opposite of that. It's yet more infrastructure for Google to force dependence on Google Play Services in the wider Android ecosystem.

It's also a great way to kill off a bunch of independent developers that make zero money from their project from publishing software for your platform.

This idea needs to be canned.
Google wants to make sideloading Android apps safer by verifying developers’ identities

Google wants to make sideloading safer on Android by verifiying the identities of developers who distribute apps outside the Play Store.

Android Authority
Show threadAlexia Aug 25, 2025
Software should not require permission to be written.

Software should not require permission to be distributed.

Software should not have a central entity controlling it.

The future is decentralized, fuck your centralized signature verification checks.
Show threadRyan HydeAug 26, 2025
@alexia @bigzaphod What’s cool about anarchy is that it always works because everyone is altruistic. See also libertarianism.
Show threadSean HeberAug 26, 2025
@RyanHyde @alexia it's not anarchy to want to be free to write and run software without permission. People don't need permission to write a novel or build a contraption in their garage.
Show threadRyan HydeAug 26, 2025
@bigzaphod @alexia False equivalency. Your garage contraption doesn’t have the same potential for harm as software. Your novel can never log my keystrokes.
Show threadPete / Syllopsium

@RyanHyde @bigzaphod @alexia I'm not sure I have the energy for this argument, but it's not just false equivalence but completely wrong.

Write whatever novel you want - if it violates obscenity laws, hate speech, incitement, or terrorism you'll get prosecuted.

A contraption in your garage *very definitely* needs permission if it transmits into non permitted parts of the EM spectrum, emits too much noise, pollution, has the potential to harm anyone, or you wish to take it out in a public place where standards apply (i.e. building your own car).

I don't like the direction this software is going in, but it's something I've predicted for years and been repeatedly downvoted for particularly when it applies to phones.

A manufacturer releases a phone with a very short security lifecycle. People buy it anyway because they don't care if it affects anyone else, as long as it appears to work for them. Go down this road, *eventually* the result is signed, time bombed, mandated, remote disableable firmware.

Aug 26, 2025 at 12:48amWeb