Trying to prevent software from being available/installed that isn't even in the "legitimate harm" list. That's insane.
I could rant a lot about where we're in a really horrible you don't own your phone and other people believe they own it world, but that would be going off topic here. (I.e. business you go to the store is trying to force and pressure you to install apps.. i.e. sams club, or tours/businesses pushing you excessively to use whatsapp, etc )
I'm not a music festival person so I wouldn't know, some people seem to really like them so I guess maybe? I personally say no.
The consumer is king. Better being a consumer than a citizen!
In reality, software isn't like this anymore. You, as a dev, gotta comply with various regulations and local laws if you intend to distribute software. Sure, most software in the app stores is still unregulated, but think of medical software (HIPAA or FDA in the US, MDR in the EU) or all software dealing with personal data (GDPR in EU), gambling (most countries), AI stuff (AI Act in EU), copyright (most countries) etc.
This is simply Alphabet (the company) having to comply with new regulation. In some way, this sucks for users and for devs, in other ways, it helps to protect users of (shitty) software.
And if you think about it, software seems to be the only thing you can sell without thinking for one second about regulations most of the time. It's kinda odd.
What's the possible harm? Malicious wallet app stealing users crypto coins for example.
Using "greater good" argument for censorship is a slippery slope, as we have seen with UKs Online Safety Act, when you let someone else to decide what apps and websites you should access.
Google, specifically, is having several litigations and investigations related to the abuse of their position in Search and Play Store to promote their own software products over competition.
Cryptocurrency scams and thefts are common because of this.
Google is not deciding what apps you can use. There are multiple places to get software.
Hasn't hit much of their market share, though.
But that's the developers problem. Literally what even is the point of a non-custodial crypto wallet that depends on Google's services?
No thanks. I'll be calling my rep to urge them to vote against this.
- the wallet spontaneously burns and the money ends in ashes
- the wallet cannot be ever opened again and the cash within it sealed out of reach
- the bills are tainted by poisonous substance sipping from the internal lining making them hazardeous to use
That's kind of an interesting exercice, I think we can all come up with a few dozens of cases where a traditional wallet manufacturer would be liable because of technical or regulation issues.
If someone fucks up and downloads some shady wallet app that steals their coins, they're the one at fault. How about trying to take some personal responsibility, instead of trying to get the full force of government to stop other people keeping custody of their own coins, just to protect yourself from potentially making a bad decision and installing a dodgy app? Edited to remove a personal attack
That's a great example because the venue where the plumber posted his advertisement would not be liable for the plumber's actions.
Edit: I use grapheneos and I don't agree with google gate-keeping what people put on their phone. I just thinks crypto companies, like any company, should be held accountable for their actions.
That's not what the issue is; the issue is that Play Store would ban _any_ app allowing coin self-custody, even if the app isn't any way shady.
> If someone fucks up and downloads some shady wallet app that steals their coins, they're the one at fault.
I don't agree with what google is doing. I think we should be able to download whatever we want on our phones. I think it's not a good take that the customer instead of the company, is the one that should be held responsible if a company fucks up.
* we should be able to download whatever we want on our phones
* not a good take that the customer [...] is one that should be held responsible
If you want to have a wallet app that is not backed by a company with a banking license, then could you not side load it?
We have basic minimum standards in our food safety, why not have them in our financial services?
You, as an expert in the field still can download any application you wish, but others that may not be an expert, are given some protection from potentially AI Slop apps that they wouldn’t understand are dangerous.
If you haven't noticed, there's a concerted push to make side-loading harder and harder. Sure it's an option for now, but it's quite possible we're only a few years away from Google going the Apple route and the vast majority of mobile devices not supporting installing unapproved software.
> Venmo is a service of PayPal, Inc., a licensed provider of money transfer services (NMLS ID: 910457). All money transmission is provided by PayPal, Inc. pursuant to PayPal, Inc.’s licenses. © 2021 PayPal, Inc.
See also:
Most developers in this new wave don't fully grasp the systems they're building, and end-users operate in total opacity. I have personally used AI to generate code scaffolds, and spend hours debugging edge cases, printing GitHub issues, and feeding API docs back into the system to stair it right enough times that I end up understanding a lot more what it is I plan on implementing as I reach a solid implementation. The average user wouldn't even know where to start with that.
Google's policy isn't an overreach; more like a reaction to the coming tsunami of superficially functional but fundamentally fragile tools. This is just the first domino. Expect more platform-level interventions as poorly understood tech stacks meet real-world consequences.
The era of "move fast and break things" is colliding with domains where broken things ruin lives. I wouldn't want any family members/close friends getting to swallow the latter pill.
│
└── Dey well; Be well
Does Google has a banking licence ? I've never heard of "Google bank". What is so special about Google Pay ?
As a general point, there's a lot more banking entities than we as customer come into contact with.
The bar isn't as high people image, and even for a middle-sized company getting a banking license is mostly a matter of investment and how serious they are about maintaining that activity in the long term. Any of the GAFAM already have or could have a operating internal banking arm if they wish it into existence.
I sure wish we could tell that to the AI industry that pushed such changes to begin with. This is a good control factor, but the true perpertrators are at large.
The tools are there. It's up to us to deal with them.
All without the slightest bit of data security. If you had the right URL you could download the entire user database, since the LLM they used to create it didn't think data security was important.
https://x.com/newsfromgoogle/status/1955741506440192463?s=52...
exabrial•5mo ago
wmf•5mo ago
subscribed•5mo ago
Google Pay doesn't hold/process crypto, crypto wallets don't allow paying with payment terminals (nfc pay, tap to pay, etc).
subscribed•5mo ago
My workaround is Garmin Pay on my wrist. Works fully offline and I have it always handy.
bbbbbenji•5mo ago
https://www.curve.com/
exabrial•5mo ago