Test1
Google have declared Droidscript is malware
421–430 of 665 posts
Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware
#422It's seriously time to re-embrace the idea of ownership and control of our devices, and reject Android and iOS altogether. Developing for those platforms has become worse and more restrictive over the years, and this kind of crap is now just everyday news. How good are Pinephones[1]? Are there better alternatives? [1] https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/
When Mozilla was trying to get their OS for mobile phones, I think they stepped in too early. Right now it's probably a better time for an alternative.
Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware
#423Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most users don't really understand what they're giving up when they give up the option to run arbitrary code As with privacy (Facebook privacy settings, cookie boxes), it's easy to bamboozle the general public with complexity and then interpret their confusion and (violated) trust as consent.
This is one case though where that lack of understanding leads to the right conclusion. The average user is giving up nothing by losing the right to run arbitrary code, because they never were running arbitrary code.
>they never were running arbitrary code
JavaScript is allowed on iOS and Android already. So if Goole or Apple do not allow you to run some scripting language you want then the reason is not security(the sandbox and permissions should be enough and if is not enough then it means the sand boxing is a lie).
Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware
#424Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's based on a real policy that can be verified by others, then there is no ambiguity here. "We reviewed your case, and based on our policy, we cannot reinstate your account. Because if we did, we'd be the ones violating our policy, and someone -including you- could then actually sue us for unfair business practices, rather than merely complaining about overly restrictive policies that are blindly enforced throug…
They can always either change or make an exception to the policy. A policy is just their way of doing things, written down. It’s not magic.
That's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement, which can be a problem, especially when contracts reference the policy.
Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware
#425Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think your thoughts on this are plausible, if not likely. However, the usual complete lack of communication by google is the actual problem. Perhaps droidscripts could mitigate googles concerns, if they had the decency to explain them.
But if they do, a malicious actor can use that information to circumvent their restrictions, and its their walled garden, so they have very little incentive to tell everyone exactly what they don't like.
And we have very little incentive to not complain loudly and publicly about their practices.
Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware
#426So they created an app that works as a programming environment, one of their users abused the google play services and they are getting the flak for it.
Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware
#427> In your case, we have detected invalid traffic or activity on your account (Publisher Code: pub-********) and as a result it has been disabled. Because of this, the ability to serve and monetise through all products which depend on AdSense will also be disabled (for example, AdMob and YouTube). > We understand that you may want to know more about the issues that we’ve detected. Because this information could be use…
"We've noticed that you're violating our policies."
"Which policies?"
"That's none of your business."
"How are we violating them?"
"I'm not going to tell you."
"What can we do?"
"Fix the issues, and then appeal."
"Which issues?"
"I've said too much already."
Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware
#428Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can use Watshapp multiple ways on Linux, including the web browser version [ https://itsfoss.com/whatsapp-linux-desktop/ ]. Although, if you're using Whatsapp at all you're either massively ignorant or stupid. I mean, giving Facebook your phone number is just not wise.
And you still need the phone app for that Linux client; everything is routed through that. Good grief, I keep bloody repeating this. Do you people actually read anything? > Although, if you're using Whatsapp at all you're either massively ignorant or stupid. I mean, giving Facebook your phone number is just not wise. I'm a normal human being who values social contact and doesn't want to pester all my friends in using…
I can't help but notice that it's not a “Linux”'s job to do something about WhatsApp demanding this and that from you. It's a problem (let's not belittle it), and it's yours (well, you share it with others).
Also, people who can't get in touch with you because you don't use some fad-of-the-year app are not your real friends. Tell them that you still use MySpace (wearing a Myspace T-shirt), or prefer WeChat (a billion of users can't be wrong), and see how it goes.
Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware
#429Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. If you buy a product from me with 30 day warranty and it breaks on day 31 and you contact me, I will not give you a refund because: a) I haven't agreed to do so b) I'm not bound to do so c) I don't think it's warranted in this case. But I'm not "unable" to issue a refund. In another case I may say "hm it's out of warranty but you know what, it really shouldn't have broken like that and you're a good custo…
"I can't agree with you" "I cannot continue this relationship" "I can't kill this guy" "I just can't eat meat anymore" "I cannot continue like this" These are all examples where someone clearly could for physical reasons, but they can't for other reasons they are bound to, whatever these reasons are.
Yes, but without those reasons these are just ambiguous unprovable statements.
Without reasoning we cannot tell if the auxiliary verb is even correct.
“I can’t eat meat anymore because it’s illegal”, really should read “I shouldn’t eat meat anymore” as although it’s a bad idea you’re still physically capable of eating meat.
I think the issue we’re talking about is ambiguity, and this really just emphasises the point.
Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware
#430Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe don't scratch Android too fast. Android is opensource, and is technically really great. There is a great opensource community of people that are very capable in this area, and supports already the vast majority of devices in the world. You only need to get rid of Google. Which many custom Android provide. Personally my smartphone is a Pixel 5 (IMO best smartphone currently available that fit in a hand), running…
More and more functionality is being shoved into Google Play Services. I have a deGoogled phone running Lineage, but even with that, no Google Play Services, and some custom settings (like changing the captive portal URLs), there's still network traffic to Google. Add in relative unknowns like AGPS and the situation gets even worse. I also have no push notifications for most apps, have to keep a static notification s…
The ratio of available apps of Android without gapps over pinephone is still more than 1000 fold, despite SafetyNet or other reliances on Google.
For push notifications, microg does fill the gap, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. UnifiedPush is coming to fill this gap without violating Google's ToC, with self-hosting, and fully FLOSS. Is anything like that coming to PinePhone or Librem?
The Google phone-home "features" can be removed, and this is exactly the point of this thread. Android is opensource, you can control this platform however you want, especially removing all connections to Google services.
I'm guessing what you're saying is that you installed some custom Android ROM, and expected it to remove any Google tracker, but that's a wrong assumption, most Android ROMs don't target deGoogling.
Even my AOSP GSI, with FLOSS variant doesn't target removing Google phone-home features. Why? I don't approve of any data collection on Google's DNS, AGPS, or generate 204, which means it is illegal for them to use it to track me without my consent, and I believe that they are not total outlaws. Running a DNS, AGPS, or even generate 204 reliable infrastructure is hard.