this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2025
1966 points (99.4% liked)
Microblog Memes
9036 readers
2772 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
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
maybe technology is not for everyone. but if grandpa wants to video chat with his kids, maybe it's the responsibility of the kids to help him. set up child limits or deal with the occasional problems. if grandpa cannot determine if an app is safe, they will install plenty of unsafe apps from the play store too, as google play's vetting is not nearly as good as some like to argue, so it's better for them if they just can't do so by themselves.
Nnnno.
Grandpa is not a child. Grandpa is an adult. With, you know, income and independence and a full brain. Grandpa is well within his rights to own appliances that do things grandpa doesn't fully understands but that are useful to Grandpa.
There is value for Grandpa (and for your jock brother that doesn't understand computers, this isn't an age problem) to have access to applications where he pays some company to do a thing for them. Those companies can take some of the complexity out of their hands, and Grandpa should be protected from abusive practices. It's not on Grandpa to do research on technology just to make a phone call now any more than it was for 1960s grandpas.
Yyyyes.
of course. that's out of question. However the tools provided by parental controls is what can solve this problem effectively. It's specifically for the case when the user cannot use the device responsibly for one reason or another. you set parental controls up, and now they can't break their phone.
what is the reason you think the parental controls function is not appropriate for grandpa? does it block him from doing something he should be able to do freely?
I totally agree! And with that, he is well within his rights to break his phone accidentally. the question is not that. the question is whether you want to help him avoid that. with parental controls you can allow him to do everything he needs to do.
Yes. That works if grandpa is willing to ask professionals before (or after) doing something stupid. If that applies, you don't set up parental controls for him, but allow him to do whatever.
If he is not willing to do that, he needs to be barred from breaking his phone. That's why you support google's plan, because they implement that, right?
But the problem is that they implement it ineffectively because they can still install plenty of hot garbage from the play store, and it'll make every other user's lives harder who know at least somewhat what they are doing, plus of those who are willing to give help to relatives any day. Because they either won't be able to install apps that they trust, outside of the play store, or it will come with huge consequences like making google play integrity checks fail, or these apps being restricted in what can they do.
that is why you don't implement such insanity on all phones worldwide, but only individually for those people that need this kindof stronger guidance.
who needs to do research on that? you gave him the phone, it's your job to show him how to place a call. but this point is not even relevant because google's planned limitations wouldn't do anything so that your grandpa can place a call if he doesn't know how to do that.
Hell no, I do not want to help Grandpa avoid anything. I don't want to be part of Grandpa's owning appliances at all in the first place. I have way better things to do with the little time we get to share together in this world.
And again, this hypothetical old person is not a child. I don't "allow" anything in this scenario. And even if I did, and even if I had the time or interest to run IT interference for somebody else, this solution does not scale. For every tech savvy person there are thousands of people who have never read a warning pop-up in full.
Your perception of where the onus is, how much understanding of how computers work or the usefulness of foolproof computing devices is way out of whack. And I get it, it's easy to lose perspective on this. Average familiarity and all that. But you're setting up a scenario that works just for you and not for everybody else.
So no, you are wrong, for a whole range of devices, restrictions should be the default. Absolutely. No question. This isn't even up for debate.
That's, in fact, not what is being debated, seeing how Google aren't changing install restrictions at all. The changes are more insidious and extremely bad for entirely different reasons. It is frustrating that this conversation is both being had on the wrong terms for what Google is actually doing AND showing how much even casual dwellers in tech circles misunderstand how UX needs to work to be serviceable at scale.
then why do you support this thing at all?
restrictions are the default, today and the past few years. but google here wants to make it not a default, but the only option anyone can have.
y.. yes they do?? that's exactly what they are doing!
I don't? I've said multiple times that I don't.
Can somebody tell me what's the minimum guaranteed attention span in people reading stuff online so I can crunch down any points that aren't a binary of "Down with this sort of thing/Up with this sort of thing" to not have people waste my time by knee-jerk assuming my stance without reading what I'm saying? Maybe we need AI summarization more than people say we do.
Also, this is me doing that for Google now. Best I can tell Google isn't stopping sideloading, they are stopping sideloading of unsigned apps in devices with Android security certifications.
The second caveat is irrelevant, in that uncertified devices presumably don't get Google services and the Play Store, so outside off-brand Android retro handhelds it doesn't matter. The first caveat is important, because on paper you can still install stuff from a website or F-Droid or the Samsung store or whatever but those developers will have to leave their info on record.
This isn't the full app certification you need to publish on Play Store, as far as I can tell. In their words
This is very bad for a number of reasons. Just not the reasons people are reporting.