@RyanHyde @alexia @bigzaphod and what's cool about relying on big centralised bureaucracies to make sure everyone plays nicely is that they're always benevolent, always hyper-efficient, never make mistakes, and never leak confidential information. see also the US government.

(this *is* how we play this game, right?)

@RyanHyde the middle ground already exists, and it's the current side-loading process, which requires you to *explicitly* choose a somewhat obscure setting, to allow installation of apps of "unknown sources"

someone who is sideloading will generally already know what they're doing, since they have to flip this permission on. even if done permanently, it's not a global option but a per-app option to allow such installs from, say, the file manager. malware detection via Google Play Protect is *also* already a thing, mentioned in the linked article

you appear to have assumed that arguing against centralized signature verifiers to be *allowed to develop for Android,* means arguing against *any* attempt at verification. instead, it's really just: "Android, let's not do exactly what Apple is doing to wall in the garden, thanks"

seems like the best middle ground would be for Google to simply, not do this thing

@RyanHyde in context, no, it really didn't, because the original post *was not about "deregulation of everything".* it's not an extreme viewpoint to not want Google fully control what you're allowed to install on your phone. but to me, and likely to everyone else who's responded, *that* is what you are apparently objecting to, with such strange hyperbole

sounds like it might be a good time to step back from this

@yaodema We disagree about OP’s original point then. And as a she’s blocked me, I can’t go back to the source to see if my interpretation was wrong.

Which is fine, they don’t owe me anything of course.

Edit: pronouns