Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google has removed Conversations_im from the Play Store

gultsch.social

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 184 posts

Re: Google has removed Conversations_im from the Play Store

#101

Post by ChoGGi »

Dibby053 wrote: post #11

I use an open source SPAM call blocker (Yet another call blocker), which works fairly OK by querying a local spam phone number database. Recently Google Play decided to display a permanent notification prompting me to uninstall that "dangerous" app because it could "damage" my device. It's impossible to disable this notification. This app hasn't been updated in years. It has no ads. The only network request it makes…

That's from Google Play protect, you can turn it off. It also blocks apps from installing.

Settings>security and privacy>app security>play protect security

Re: Google has removed Conversations_im from the Play Store

#102

Post by droopyEyelids »

troupo wrote: post #58
carstenhag wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially tiktok is still live, and there it's super obvious they upload the contact list. First: they ask you. More importantly though: you don't even need to search for someone or someone's phone. You open the app and get 3 people suggested you never even knew had a tiktok account. Really really creepy when you just exchanged numbers with someone and you can see all their 50 tiktoks. Happened to me with a girl I m…

> You open the app and get 3 people suggested you never even knew had a tiktok account. You send links to friends, and they immediately pop up as contact suggestions, too. TikTok is really keen on tracking those relationships down

The difference here is tiktok surfaces their tracking to the user in a friend-suggestion feature.

Facebook (and others im sure) absolutely do the same thing. It's just that on facebook there is no attribution to how they generated the suggestion when the person appears on the 'people you might know' feed

Re: Google has removed Conversations_im from the Play Store

#103

Post by BadHumans »

Roark66 wrote: post #100
cma wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google doesn't know that its GET request doesn't get orders from a botnet and leaks sensitive data the app has access to. And yet the only reason Google won't add internet access as a revocable permission is their ad business. Chrome constantly scans your harddrive in a way you can't easily turn off, and it's not for your safety: it's for the safety of their ad business to try to catch malware that engages in click…

>Chrome constantly scans your harddrive in a way you can't easily turn off, and it's not for your safety: it's for the safety of their ad business to try to catch malware that engages in click fraud. If you have media or backup drives it just constantly adds wear to them. Is this true? Chrome is open source so someone should be able to point out the code that is doing that. What is the source of this info if not the…

I second this. This is a very strong accusation to have no proof.

Re: Google has removed Conversations_im from the Play Store

#104

Post by grey_earthling »

Roark66 wrote: post #100
cma wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google doesn't know that its GET request doesn't get orders from a botnet and leaks sensitive data the app has access to. And yet the only reason Google won't add internet access as a revocable permission is their ad business. Chrome constantly scans your harddrive in a way you can't easily turn off, and it's not for your safety: it's for the safety of their ad business to try to catch malware that engages in click…

>Chrome constantly scans your harddrive in a way you can't easily turn off, and it's not for your safety: it's for the safety of their ad business to try to catch malware that engages in click fraud. If you have media or backup drives it just constantly adds wear to them. Is this true? Chrome is open source so someone should be able to point out the code that is doing that. What is the source of this info if not the…

Chrome isn't open source.

Re: Google has removed Conversations_im from the Play Store

#105

Post by blue_cadet_3 »

kalleboo wrote: post #40
Dibby053 wrote: post #11

I use an open source SPAM call blocker (Yet another call blocker), which works fairly OK by querying a local spam phone number database. Recently Google Play decided to display a permanent notification prompting me to uninstall that "dangerous" app because it could "damage" my device. It's impossible to disable this notification. This app hasn't been updated in years. It has no ads. The only network request it makes…

I’m not an android user but from what I've understood is that Google is desperate to deprecate apps that were compiled for earlier Android SDKs before they introduced more iOS-style privacy APIs

Agree that this is the reason.

I have an app in the Play store and starting in June I have to get a D-U-N-S number, have a phone & email for users to contact me, a phone & email for Google to contact me and documents to verify my identity and my business.

Re: Google has removed Conversations_im from the Play Store

#106

Post by lavl »

Although it will only be fully in force as of March 6th, this sounds like an obvious violation of the European Union's new Digital Markets Act to me.

Article 6.12 states: "The gatekeeper shall apply fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its software application stores", whereas nothing about their decision is fair & reasonable.

Furthermore: "For that purpose, the gatekeeper shall publish general conditions of access, including an alternative dispute settlement mechanism.", while it sounds like no serious appeals procedure was offered.

Now, how to actually enforce this in a procedure that won't take years to complete is a different question..

Re: Google has removed Conversations_im from the Play Store

#107

Post by kuratkull »

Roark66 wrote: post #100
cma wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google doesn't know that its GET request doesn't get orders from a botnet and leaks sensitive data the app has access to. And yet the only reason Google won't add internet access as a revocable permission is their ad business. Chrome constantly scans your harddrive in a way you can't easily turn off, and it's not for your safety: it's for the safety of their ad business to try to catch malware that engages in click…

>Chrome constantly scans your harddrive in a way you can't easily turn off, and it's not for your safety: it's for the safety of their ad business to try to catch malware that engages in click fraud. If you have media or backup drives it just constantly adds wear to them. Is this true? Chrome is open source so someone should be able to point out the code that is doing that. What is the source of this info if not the…

Chromium is open source, Google adds some secret magic sauce to make Chrome.

Re: Google has removed Conversations_im from the Play Store

#108

Post by bluish29 »

Roark66 wrote: post #100
cma wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google doesn't know that its GET request doesn't get orders from a botnet and leaks sensitive data the app has access to. And yet the only reason Google won't add internet access as a revocable permission is their ad business. Chrome constantly scans your harddrive in a way you can't easily turn off, and it's not for your safety: it's for the safety of their ad business to try to catch malware that engages in click…

>Chrome constantly scans your harddrive in a way you can't easily turn off, and it's not for your safety: it's for the safety of their ad business to try to catch malware that engages in click fraud. If you have media or backup drives it just constantly adds wear to them. Is this true? Chrome is open source so someone should be able to point out the code that is doing that. What is the source of this info if not the…

I don't know but chromium is the base of chrome. Does google release chrome in an open way?

Can't they (at least in principle) apply whatever patches they want before build and release?

Re: Google has removed Conversations_im from the Play Store

#109

Post by grey_earthling »

malfist wrote: post #26
Dibby053 wrote: post #11

I use an open source SPAM call blocker (Yet another call blocker), which works fairly OK by querying a local spam phone number database. Recently Google Play decided to display a permanent notification prompting me to uninstall that "dangerous" app because it could "damage" my device. It's impossible to disable this notification. This app hasn't been updated in years. It has no ads. The only network request it makes…

Check out the Aurora store, it's a drop in replacement for the play store withot the Google nonsense. I started using it after Google refused to let me install watch faces, because the apps hadn't been updated for foldable phones.

Aurora Store is a different app, but it shows the same repo managed by Google.

If an app has been removed from the “Play Store”, that means it's been removed from the repo, and a different front-end to that repo won't include it.

Re: Google has removed Conversations_im from the Play Store

#110

Post by zaik »

zajio1am wrote: post #92
zaik wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With privacy minded folks and people who think we should just agree on using the IETF internet standard for instant messaging instead of 5 different proprietary messaging apps and 3 apps based on experimental "open" protocols (which are ultimately controlled by a single entity and never standardized).

To be fair, IETF standardization of XMPP was somewhat afterthought, and further extensions (XEPs), which are necessary for modern clients, are not IETF standardized.

Standardizing the core concepts + the extensibility of XMPP was absolutely necessary to achieve the necessary protocol agility I think. Requirements have changed a LOT since 1998 and we still have innovative and modern XMPP clients, maintained by the community, mostly in their free time without any need for millions of dollars of VC money.

Without standardization, there can be no interoperability and without agility any IM protocol will soon be outdated. I think XMPP is a success story because it realized this, but it's a success story that isn't told very often.

Post reply on HN