You can acknowledge that different concepts exist and would be better served by having different words, rather than trying to force others (via downvoting) into not using a given word. Whether you support google's restrictions or not, they only apply to a subset of apps, so having a word to refer to the specific subset of apps is helpful.

▲

owebmaster 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Helpful to whom? Google banning installing apps outside of play store is the correct story.

▲

gruez 2 days ago | parent [-]

Helpful for the purposes of discussion. Consider:

"Google is banning installing apps!"

"Google is banning sideloading!"

Regardless of your position on whether Android should care whether an app came from the play store downloaded elsewhere, it's worth distinguishing them for the purposes of discussing what's happening.

▲

NietzscheanNull 2 days ago | parent [-]

I think your example is stilted in exactly the direction that the anti-sideloading-as-a-term crowd fears is increasingly becoming normalized.

In fact, I think it's actually a perfect demonstration of how incredibly subtle and pernicious even small changes in the language we use can be, especially over a period of years to decades. Those changes are capable of reframing public perceptions in ways that inhibit our ability to recognize what would otherwise be obvious attacks on our expectations of rights and individual agency (were they couched in the existing terminology instead).

I would propose a modified counter-example to illustrate my point:

"Google is banning installation of apps they don't approve!"

"Google is banning sideloading!"

This makes it clear what's actually happening: ownership of a Google device is no longer truly ownership. You are only allowed to install apps Google deems acceptable, and are denied the agency to install apps that are not. The device is fundamentally Google's to control; you're merely a user.

▲

gruez 2 days ago | parent [-]

>In fact, I think it's actually a perfect demonstration of how incredibly subtle and pernicious even small changes in the language we use can be, especially over a period of years to decades. Those changes are capable of reframing public perceptions in ways that inhibit our ability to recognize what would otherwise be obvious attacks on our expectations of rights and individual agency (were they couched in the existing terminology instead).

>I would propose a modified counter-example to illustrate my point: ...

Which just turns into endless fight over wording, where each side tries to get the maximally sympathetic wording they can get away with, and decry the other side's attempts at rewording as "doublespeak" or whatever. eg. are they "illegal immigrants" (implying they did something illegal) or merely "undocumented" (implying they lost their documents or whatever)?

	▲	owebmaster 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> Which just turns into endless fight over wording Sure. One side benefits the users and the other benefits a monopoly. I don't work for that monopoly but I do use a smartphone that is locked to the monopolist OS.

▲

x______________ 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> You can acknowledge that different concepts exist and would be better served by having different words, rather than trying to force others (via downvoting)

Bold of you to assume that downvoting was accompanied by words.

On that note, the gain of creating doublespeak is usually in the favor of those who create it. Added unnecessary complexity will only serve to create fear, uncertainty and doubt, while the original meaning and intent was well established with words.

We have existing words and works of art to establish a link to the intents, purposes and end goals to what Google has done here.