I understand the frustration (I'm an avid fdroid user across many many devices). But this article comes off as childish with the virus/trojan/"malware vendor".

With such an article, many (including perhaps google) get the ammo to disregard what fdroid says, by branding them as childish/not to be taken seriously. for eg: no reputable news org is going to post this.

PS: https://keepandroidopen.org/ is better done.

I thought the same thing but he apparently has a point. The stated purpose covers only a tiny sliver of the capabilities. The agreement points to the TOS where it (last time I looked) says service may be terminated at any time without stating a reason. Nothing guarantees it won't be used for things other than security. And finally he has a point where it also doesn't really do much for security.

If we ask their fine search engine, the AI helpfully explains malware to be software designed to gain unauthorized access to disrupt, extort payments and/or hijack devices.

If you still think the shoe doesn't fit, imagine what would happen if one managed to create an app with the same capabilities. Google would remove it immediately for being malware. Obvious malware.

I think the point they are trying to make is that in the terms of service Google says they get to define what is malware (halfway through article) so the author is trying to point out that exact danger: what happens when Google gets to randomly call things malware.

The article provides enough evidence for that label. Unlike Google, who can arbitrarily call anything "malware". This is the contrast the article attempts to point out.

I have the opposite opinion, Google is doing a lot of garbage in the name of "Security", time to play their game and report their control on Android as security vulnerability