“How do you do, fellow scholars”

And very few of them are on record advocating for how we should not have empathy for gun victims. The right wingers whining for compassion here are dishonouring his legacy.

I would be very happy if anyone could explain to me in a simple and coherent way why I, as a normal user who am aware of what I am doing on my device and am not targeted by any group that’s out to get me, would need a “hardened malloc”, “secure app spawning”, “vanadium browser and webview”, or a “hardened PDF viewer”. The last of these four is the only thing that means anything to me, and it sounds dumb. Yeah, I know PDFs can be dangerous if you open random shit, but come on.

If I run Waydroid it’s only to get my banking app (trusted source) and Whatsapp (not a trusted source but not directly malware either) working. I hardly need their hardened PDF reader.

I guess if Google closes down AOSP it would get forked, and the fork would probably be a separate thing from the current Android distributions. So that the landscape would continue to look a bit like today, except that AOSP would be an independent thing.

Then I guess it’s possible that Google would seek to make android apps incompatible, gradually making the whole thing kinda pointless. I can’t say I’m using Android for the great UX - I’m using it because it supports a few apps I continue to be forced to use. If I can’t use them on Android any more I’m switching to Ubuntu Touch or PostmarketOS in a heartbeat.

I guess the parts of the fediverse that allows adult content. There’s a lot of people on the fediverse dedicated to supporting sex workers and stuff like that. None of these sites or users are in a position to sue the UK though, I’m just giving a pedantic answer to your question.

Now 4chan becomes the face of resistance to this shit, and people will think it is only being opposed by a bunch of deplorable incels. It delegitimizes the entire opposition - you can’t speak out against it any more without being associated with 4chan and whatever the fuck kiwi farm is.

At least that’s the risk, and that’s why I wish these sites would go die in a hole rather than involve themselves with things I care about.

Everything takes a long time, but things are happening. If you search for the terms “fine apple EU” or “fine apple EU” in your search engine of choice you’ll see there’s quite a lot going on.

I have some personal friends who are working with this stuff for the European Commission. It basically takes a long time to build a case against tech giants, and then once the Commission fines them these fines will be appealed in the EU court system, which will take even more years to process.

It’s annoying that there’s not a magic switch to flick to make Google and Apple comply with EU law, but that’s the world we live in. If the EU just banned Google and/or Apple it would probably backlash tremendously (never mind that I doubt they have the authority to do so even if they wanted), so they have to move a bit slowly. :)

You can’t make laws for every single possible future reality. We need courts that uphold laws even when billionaires try to dodge them using shady techniques. The problem is that big tech often gets away with murder because they can afford expensive lawyers. Especially in the US laws are essentially meaningless for the rich. This is not so much the case in Europe.

I have heard some positive signals from the European Court of Justice that they are taking the challenge from big tech seriously and that they are going the extra miles to understand these issues. If you’re particularly interested, many judges talk about this in the Borderlines podcast series by Berkley law. But it gets really dry really fast haha.

I don’t believe in signing authorities. It’s not effective - Google can’t even keep malware off the play store - and it’s an authoritarian move. Hell, most apps in the play store spy on their users, profiling usage to sell to advertisers along with ID codes that makes it possible to combine data between apps and build detailed profiles of individuals. The problem is not apps that are not signed - the problem is the whole economy of apps that work as Google intend them to.

Also, it’s a basic question of rights. It’s my phone, I bought the hardware, I own it, I install whatever the fuck I want on it.

Not unabated. They are stuck trying to find new loopholes to not comply, which are then struck down. It’s a cat and mouse game, and they think they can get away with it because they have the most expensive lawyers.

Again, enforcement is the challenge, not the laws themselves.

I have no idea as I don’t follow apple much, but I am aware that they are constantly trying to find ways to avoid complying with EU law, and that it is often rapidly struck down.

What you’re describing here is not a failure of the law, but Apple trying real hard to find creative ways not to comply with it. To me it only shows that they are desperate, and that EU law is in fact getting to them.

If they keep at it it’ll eventually end up in court, the case will take a couple of years, and they’ll be slammed with a fine and asked to get their shit together.

Does the law demand unsigned software?

The answer is no. It’s not phrased like that. But it’s all about ensuring free competition in digital markets. The sole purpose of Google’s move here is to hinder competition in their own digital market, and to keep control over it.

So the law does not have a paragraph stating that “unsigned software must be allowed”, but it has a bunch of other paragraphs that can be used to strike down on monopolistic behaviour.

Google are aware of the law, and will try to find a loophole by designing a system that they believe technically complies with it. Then someone will sue them, it will end up in the European court, and the European court will in all likelyhood tell Google to get fucked.

It seems american tech companies think they can get away with anything because that’s how it works in the US. We are repeatedly seeing that this is not how it works in Europe: the Court of Justice tends to care deeply about the intention of the law, as well as the perceived consequences of their rulings. And they don’t seem to care all that much about American capitalists.

But to answer your question very simply: No, it doesn’t. But thankfully that doesn’t matter at all.

What exactly do you mean?

Sure, nothing is perfect, but EU legislation has generally been quite good, from the GDPR to the DMA.

The challenges are more related to enforcement - rules on the book are worth nothing if we don’t force companies to live by them. In this respect we’ve seen some pretty sloppy behaviour, but also some victories. It’s not a one-sided story.

Another challenge is of course to keep passing good laws, and to avoid terrible ones. Chat control needs to be stopped. Stopping it is a matter of convincing national governments it’s a bad idea, as well as members of the European Parliament - everyone should be writing their representatives NOW. But that’s another issue entirely. :)

Google is clearly trying to find a loophole here. Their loophole clearly sucks.

In all likelihood it’ll end up in front of the Court of Justice of the European Union. And in all likelihood Google will lose again.

The Court of Justice generally seems unimpressed by American lobbyists, so the strategy of finding a dumb loophole is probably doomed to fail.

The EU already forced sideloading to be officially supported on iPhones thanks to the Digital Markets Act, and that law applies to Google as well.

The US will likely apply pressure, just like they are trying to force their death machines to be legalized on European roads. Apple already tried to pressure the union and failed, but the political climate has changed a bit since then, and while EU bureaucrats can be fierce, European leadership tends to be weak as fuck.

But yeah, chances are that this change won’t apply to the EU. :)

Yeah, content is quickly being hidden behind all sorts of walls, and even governments are now passing laws to render content inaccessible without ID verification

I have just come to accept that the internet has shrunk. I liked it better back when it was smaller anyway. But it is frustrating whenever I have a problem that has been carefully solved by some random person on Reddit or some middle aged man on YouTube 20 years ago, only for it to be rendered inaccessible without giving up all kinds of privacy.

I believe /e/OS supports a broader range of devices, and it’s also pretty great in my experience. The focus is on getting rid of google (replacing all services with MicroG and nextcloud integration) and blocking trackers while providing a smooth user experience, so it’s security features are not as over the top as Graphene. It’s still a huge freaking improvement over stock Android though, and I find it to be a joy to use.

On devices supported by the online installer it can be up an running in like 30 minutes, no technical skills required. :)

As long as it’s based on software rather than hardware I think it’s safe to assume it will be lost.

You can reinstall some things (such as the default camera app) from apks you find online, and apps such as Google Maps can be downloaded from the app store (which contains all apps from the play store). But by default it strips away everything that is installed on the phone by default and replaces it with a degoogled ecosystem, and I don’t think it differentiates between different devices.

Pixel 6 is supported through community ports (6, 6 pro, 6a), but unfortunately it is not supported (yet?) by the online installer tool. So it’s for people who are a bit more willing to get their hands dirty.

If you own a Fairphone (3-5), Pixel (4, 5, 7 or 8) Nothing phone (1) or OnePlus (7 or 8), it’s super easy to install /e/OS using this online installer. Most android apps work well out of the box, but all Google stuff has been stripped away and replaced with MicroG where necessary.

I’m never returning to Google anything.

For most jobs it’s hard to do a hiring process without in-person interviews, or at the very least video calls. So I’m not really sure how one could realistically get rid of biases. But I completely agree that whenever there are too many applications to interview everyone individually, the initial screening of applicants should be completely anonymized and rely only only technologies where biases can at least be understood.

For the final step I’m afraid we’ll have to try to train people to be less prone to biased decision-making. Which I agree is not a very promising path.