MudMan

No worries, I appreciate that.

FWIW, I don’t really care about downvotes either way. I am clearly not here to pander, with my “NUANCED POINT IS NUANCED, YOU NAUGHTY, NAUGHTY CHILDREN” persona.

It is absolutely fair to criticise them for the stuff they are actually doing, yes.

That’s why I wrote:

I mean, that’s all really bad. Why do we need the hyperbolic “Google is killing Open Source” framing? The real thing is bad enough and it doesn’t make me show up to argue about it. Plus you could have accurately stated “Google kills anonymous apps, threatening alternate app stores” and that would have been 100% accurate and just as horrifying.

Again, there is no need to slippery slope this crap, because it’s bad now. So why even point out how little you trust Google will do the bad thing they said they are doing for 100% real and imagine a worse thing they’ll do later, even if it’s likely that they will? All it does is invite pedants like me to argue with you, which can then be weaponized by Google to say you’re deliberately misrepresenting the issue.

I know. And I didn’t defend Google’s ownership of your phone.

See how annoying that is?

The second person is rhetorical there. I’m saying whether you believe that in all caps and bold letters is entirely irrelevant to whether the video title is misrepresenting the issue.

I don’t care who you trust, honestly.

I have no patience for slippery slope arguments to justify poor reporting or misinformation.

For what it’s worth, I do think there is a slippery slope and it’s reasonable to expect things to tighten down the line without regulatory intervention.

But that doesn’t matter, because this is bad even if nothing like that happens down the line, and even if Google can’t be trusted the coverage is misrepresenting the issue.

Man, I hate the Internet.

Cool.

So title the video like that and don’t misrepresent it and I’ll be here agreeing with you.

“But I disagree with what Google is doing” is a non sequitur here.

You guys keep misrepresenting things I disagree with and make me fact check them, then argue with me as if I’m agreeing with them.

Google isn’t killing Open Source Android apps, although it may very well kill F-Droid. Open source devs can definitely still register and provide their apps as a standalone APK.

This does open the door to Google refusing to grant an account to people they don’t like, although they haven’t done that yet, and it should be noted that as they present it once you have a dev account you can just sign as many apps as you want.

The real eff you from Google to F-Droid here is that they are presenting two types of accounts you can use for this: dev accounts, meant to publish on Google Play (although potentially you could just… not do that) and student/personal accounts that are free and they claim are meant for hobbyists. I’ve heard rumbings online about what the dividing line will be between them, so that may be a functional workaround for anybody who doesn’t want to be on Google Play, but I haven’t seen anything specific from Google on it other than “it’s coming”. It does stand out that “I’m an Open Source dev who doesn’t care about Google Play” is not part of the equation here, though, and “I’m F-Droid and I intend to build and verify a TON of apks” is also not accounted for at all.

And of course there now will be a direct paper trail between any signed app and an organization or individual, which is a legal liability issue for a number of app developers. At least on phones. Non-Google certified devices (think Android SBCs and handhelds) should still be able to load unsigned APKs, although those are residual.

I mean, that’s all really bad. Why do we need the hyperbolic “Google is killing Open Source” framing? The real thing is bad enough and it doesn’t make me show up to argue about it. Plus you could have accurately stated “Google kills anonymous apps, threatening alternate app stores” and that would have been 100% accurate and just as horrifying.

I have not lived in Germany, and never thought to ask any of the Germans I know about this because it’s a rather dumb argument that isn’t that important, but this is what Wikipedia has to say about their ID card status:

A German identity card is compulsory to possess but not carry for all German citizens aged 16 or older; a passport can also be used in lieu of an identity card.

While police officers and some other officials have a right to demand to see one of those documents, the law does not state that one is obliged to submit the document immediately. Fines may only be applied if an identity card or passport is not possessed at all, if the document is expired or if one explicitly refuses to show ID to the police. If one is unable to produce an ID card or passport (or any other form of credible identification) during a police control, one can (in theory) be brought to the next police post and detained for a maximum of 12 hours, or until positive identification is possible. However, this measure is only applied if the police have reasonable grounds to believe the person detained has committed an offence.[127]

This gels with the rules in the handful of places where I’ve lived that have mandatory ID rules. With the important corollary that ID cards typically fit in your wallet and passports are big fat books you have to store separately.

Either way ID is ID.

Oh, hah. Hadn’t noticed. Man, that makes me more curious. I assumed it was some sort of macro, but if it isn’t then I want to know what typing solution is in play.

Whatever, if they want to be that guy, be that guy. We used to have post signatures in forums and recognize people from those. It’s just… you know, people are gonna keep asking, understandably.

What, as in just in case he removes specifically that part? I mean, I wouldn’t wory, it’s the least wrong part of his previous post, although it’s still supremely weird that they’re so obsessed with passports.

So you’d live in Spain but not in Portugal, Germany, Belgium or Greece? That’s highly specific aspirational European life goals. What’s with that? You like it when the Ñs get curls but Çs make you queasy?

Nobody in Europe uses a passport as a primary form of ID, what are you on about? Within the EU you don’t even need a passport to travel. Passport coverage rankings in Europe are between 40 and 80%, just like pretty much everywhere else. Are you under the impression that people in the EU just present their passport to identify themselves at the bank? Because… no, they don’t.

But most of Europe (and pretty much every other continent) does have some form of mandatory ID. And most ID, mandatory or not, now contains biometric identification, and that includes passports even in countries without mandatory ID, with only a few exceptions.

I’d be more contrarian about whatever point you’re trying to make, but there doesn’t seem to be one. Still super curious about how you grew a thorn key on your keyboard and how you came to think this was a cool thing to do online, speaking of erroneous impressions.

So let me get this straight, you’re arguing that you shouldn’t be repurposing other people’s images in conversations on Lemmy/Fedi?

Have you… seen the Internet?

Also, I pasted a screenshot to a piece of info instead of linking the fifteen minute video where it originated specifically to save people time. How hard can you Karen at someone giving you an accurate piece of info? You have now posted three separate times acting all mad about receiving accurate, increasingly detailed information. Am I allowed to go do my other tasks of the day now, boss? Or do you need me to look up any other factoids while you slap me with a riding crop?

I mean, I can fulfil a fact checking fetish in a pinch, unusual as that may be, but I do think we should get some safety words down at this point.

You see both a larger picture that provides the same, consistent info with additional data and an explanation of the information contained in the screenshot I shared above. Typically a second independent source is considered a good thing when fact checking, friend.

Buyt hey, since you’re so simultaneously concerned with sourcing every single instance of the same data and unwilling to do any work to find it yourself (which you aren’t, at this point you’re mostly being antagonistic), the source of the original image is this video, not Google Images.

And in case you’re too busy demanding other people do work for you for free to actually watch it, the numbers are the age gates for mandatory ID in those countries and are there because I just happened to land on that particular frame when screenshotting it. Because… yeah, I decided to only devote so much time into looking this up for you all. I do enough homework for people on the Internet as it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_identity_card_policies_by_country

I get that Google sucks these days, but… you know, there are still ways.

“Your” as in pretty much everybody’s. The vast majority of countries have biometric data in passports. And a majority have compulsory ID.

And frankly, I don’t particularly care about how weird people in the US are these days. I’m not sure I get what point you’re trying to make. Is the fact that you can redneck yourself all the way off the grid supposed to be a good thing in this scenario?

Also, what’s with all the thorn usage? Is your keyboard broken or have you been watching too many linguistics videos in Youtube and developed an affectation?

You sure everybody else agrees with you on that?

Cause it doesn’t sound like it.

To be clear, I do think the UK’s proposal specifically is problematic in that it requires you to own a specific device to support it and that it’s targeting undocumented migrants specifically. That said, the UK has a contentious relationship with the concept of mandatory ID that goes beyond the practical implementation issues or the actual instances of overreach being proposed alongside it.

I mean, for one thing I have no idea why they couldn’t implement this as an ID card like everybody else does.

On this they’re both outliers. Mandatory ID is pretty much the norm.

Living in a place with it… it’s fine. Helps with some things. Definitely not the weird sci-fi tyrannical dystopia Brits and Americans suggest. It mostly depends on what is built around it. It’s not like identification doesn’t exist for fundamental transactions in places without a single consolidated ID document.

And yes, ours has all the accoutrements, including a digital certificate and biometric data, just like your passport does.

My country has had mandatory ID and digital certificates built into it for decades, so… the tone of this is going to miss the mark here.

That being said, it’s one thing for it to exist for remote signatures or access to online interactions with public entities and another to require it on general use of private interactions.

This thing would get more traction if it had any amount of nuance, instead of fearmongering all the way into “ID existing is class warfare”. It reads like a reductio ad absurdum of both a progressive and a privacy-minded position. It’s really clumsy.