Microblog Memes

I am not sure if enhanced (and force-fed) security features are the main problems here. Monopolies, spying and not having easily accessible alternatives (easy from the perspective of a more average user) are the main problems. Because google and apple are monopolies, most security critical apps like banking apps (that you unfortunately need now a days) don't support alternative OSs which also feedbacks the monopoly. Otherwise I am fine if some people opt for a phone that is basically a locked black box for them so long as there are other alternatives (including those which are still super secure/locked but does not spy).

It is much more crazy to me that you have to fight your device so that it does not sneakily do something that you don't want it to do (like install AI out of the blue or use data for mapping your habits). And most average users won't give this fight and that is what these companies really count on.

I think that, with the current state of OSes like Windows and Android, there should be some minimal amount of friction to enabling installation of non-vetted apps. Maybe some switch that can't be enabled accidentally, or without understanding that there's risk involved (or at least a switch that can be disabled and password protected) for the sake of children or the elderly.

On the other hand, though, an OS should be built with enough security and sandboxing that no single application can brick your entire device without at least tapping through and giving it a ton of permissions; which means that the only remaining risk to the end user would be access to disinformation or other harmful content, or the risk of personal information exfiltration (i.e. phishing). At that point, a simple block list (or even just an allow list) maintained by a trusted guardian or third party would be sufficient to keep children or the elderly from harmful content, and whoops we've just invented the internet again.

I am once again begging for Boot2Gecko to become a thing.

Is this the context? https://mastodon.social/@arstechnica/115091392102147470

arstechnica@mastodon.social - Google will block sideloading of unverified Android apps starting next year
Google says it's no different than checking IDs at the airport.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/08/google-will-block-sideloading-of-unverified-android-apps-starting-next-year/?utm_social-type=owned

Pardon my ignorance, but would loading a forked version of android (like lineageOS or grapheneOS) get around this? I know graphene at least puts all Google services in its own container. Would that allow the rest of the system to run "side loaded" apps? Or is this unavoidable if you use any version based on android?

I'm probably going to spam this around a bit, since most people don't seem to know about it, but a reminder that FuriLabs has a (GNU+)Linux phone with decent spec.s and the ability to run Android app.s (from what I've heard) pretty decently: https://furilabs.com/

Biggest drawback is it's based on Halium. Usual growing pains of a new product/company apply but apparently the company is pretty responsive and their dev.s have worked with customers to get things like calling working with the carrier and bands of their country where it hasn't worked before so improvements move pretty quickly.

Collection of different experiences I've variously seen online over the last year or so:

• https://clehaxze.tw/gemlog/2025/07-20-flx1-actually-usable-linux-phone.gmi
• https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41839326
• https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1fa1ljn/furilabs_flx1/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1j46f2w/flx1_linux_phone_display_out/
• https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/03/furiphone_flx1/

I don't own one, myself, so I can't give any personal experience but I've seen it around for a few years now but most people don't seem to even know about it. Maybe there's a reason for that? But none I've ever seen anyone say.

B-b-but brand integrity! Customers love that! (Shareholders too)