Thx for this, @simgal55

When I heard about the UA, I thought that'd be great as a competing creditation. If your stuck w/ capitalists, competition is one of the few ways to keep them in check.

But Graphene is also right, it's two capitalist-things determining how people use their device. Defining safety. NEVER let capitalists define things. It should be a third party regulatory org, at least not the companies needing regulation. NEVER let capitalists regulate themselves.

@thelinuxexperiment

Graphene is also right there shouldnt be this kind of regulation. I dont think I would be against a badge that says "this app is safe". Letting people decide if they will trust the badge. But it shouldnt be an automated lock out.

BUT also, Graphene is saying all this in such a crude, reactionary way. The substance is good, their attitude delivering it is combative. I approve their activism for privacy. But not their language.

@simgal55 @thelinuxexperiment

@simgal55 @thelinuxexperiment it sounds like Graphene had some legitimate reasons not to with the current implementation (from the thread ongoing issues with Murena, the UA implementation being just a wrapper on the Android api relying on a proprietary component), though their argument about not allowing non-compliant devices is a bit weaker coming from Graphene which blocks installs of Graphene on non-Pixel phones or their own 2027 Motorola device.

Edit: reworded to make more coherent