I'm not in agreement with most of you, hn. They've found a decent compromise that works for power users and the general population. Your status as a power user does not invalidate the need to help the more vulnerable.

Having to wait a day for a one off isn't a big deal, if they kept it looser then you'd be shouting about the amount of scams that propagate on the platform.

▲

t_mahmood 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Same with bootloader unlocking isn't it?

Ah, its not much, just an email away ...

oh, not much it's email and a phone call away ...

Just wait 7 days ... no, it's just a month, and only one device par account? What's wrong with it? You are overreacting

Wait! Why you want to unlock your boot loader, only 0.000001% does it. You are abnormal, not the mass user

Fool me once it's on you Fool me twice ... it's on me.

We are already over twice, but none the wiser.

▲

izacus 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

All Google Pixel phones still have unlockable and resignable bootloader.

	▲	t_mahmood 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Um, I am sorry, in the current context, Why do you think of all, we still pay Google? :-)

▲

nolist_policy 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You can buy a Pixel instead of a Xiaomi.

▲

t_mahmood 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Why would I pay Google after this? I have gotten rid of Xiaomi a long time ago.

For now, I am rolling with my OnePlus 7 with LineageOS, till I find a phone that's not completely locked down. Yes, it's old, but it gets my job done. Once I am off all of Google's services, I'll probably get rid of Google in most part of my life.

As, someone who is a user from invite only Gmail, it's difficult, but necessary.

	▲	Aachen 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		So like a Motorola, Sony, Fairphone, Shiftphone, Jolla... none of these are 'completely locked down' (though besides Jolla, they're all a little: they don't come as "yours" by default because of the contract with Google to be allowed to ship Play/Maps/etc.)

▲

allreduce 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This helping the vulnerable framing is naive at best. This is about an American ad company consolidating their power over what people can do with devices they bought and are reliant on daily.

Helping the vulnerable should not involve that. If your only idea on how to help the vulnerable involves that, think of better ideas.

	▲	dandellion 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		At some point we need to start wondering if it's not just naivete but intellectual dishonesty. The same American corporations that claim to be imposing draconian control measures to "protect the vulnerable" are, at the same time, exploiting those very same vulnerable people to the best of their ability. Take Google, they have no problem showing ads for scams in Youtube and Google Ads. There is mounting evidence that their recommendation algorithms for Youtube, shorts, etc. negatively affect mental health, especially youngest ones. But it makes them money, and they've zero interest in preventing that or changing it. And it's not just Google, it's the m.o. of all large corporations. Another example is Epic Games, they advertise how they will fight in court against big companies like Google and Apple to defend their users. Yet they've gotten fined repeatedly for amounts in the millions, for predatory micro-transactions, and misleading minors into spending money without the consent of their parents. Time and time again it is proven that everything these companies do, it's always for the benefit of their bottom line, and consideration for their users does not even factor into their considerations. This is no different, they want to push it because it will give them more control or make them money, and it either won't protect anyone, or that's just an unintended side effect but a good way to market it.

▲

keanebean86 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My personal hard line is having to ask Google for permission to sideload. Even if it's free and no personal info is exchanged. This new process is annoying but I can see it helping prevent scams.

▲

varispeed 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But this is very rich from them given they serve scam ads with impunity.

I'd say this has nothing to do with preventing scams, but to make independent software more difficult to distribute.

▲

kace91 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Having to wait a day for a one off isn't a big deal

It's my phone. It's my software. Period.

The general population is deterred by burying a setting deep. Waiting is a dark pattern and we're not idiots.

▲

Kwpolska 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Scammers can coerce people into ignoring warnings if they convince them their entire life savings are on the line. It's hard to do if you need to wait 24 hours before the setting unlocks.

	▲	eipi10_hn 15 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		They will just call you the next days lmfao. There are countless news in my country that scammers hanging around on phone with the victims for some days before they do the deed. They are just switching from 1 long call to multiple reasonable calls because people naturally become more trusting the ones they talk more frequently and the scammers succeed more. That's exactly the words of a scammer when the police interrogating him at my place.
	▲	kace91 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Scammers can also convince people to give them their home's keys. Does not allow you to keep me from opening my door without the door maker's permission. As a non American, losing my ability to run software even if google decides that software can't enter their store feels much higher a risk.
	▲	hermanzegerman 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Are these scammers in the room with us?

▲

11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]