527
Google's plan to restrict sideloading on Android has a potential escape hatch for users
(www.androidauthority.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2025
527 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
76523 readers
1294 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This is an obvious lie.
they want to improve thier AI and datamining capabilities.
What am I not seeing? How does this improve datamining capabilities?
Target can track your purchases when you shop at Target, but can't really do that when you're shopping at a local store. Same applies here.
But you can't shop at Target with some random app, only the Target app. Even a small business has an accessible pathway to publish their app. Besides Fortnite and my gimbal nobody out here trying to educate customers on how to install their apk file.
They mean a physical Target store, not a phone app. Target can track customers walking in and out the door and what they buy, how long they stay, etc. but they can't track anything about you if you just go to a different store, especially something like a small business which isn't hooked into the ad data sponge.
Also if the CEO of target decides he really doesn't like a popular shirt and is able to force everyone to only shop at target, then he can come a lot closer to snuffing out the existence of that shirt.
They never specified who’s security…
Whose*
Who's = who + is
Whose = an indication of possession
I will always remember this grammar rule thanks to the show "Whose Line Is It Anyway?" because I would see that title every morning before school.
The question is still valid, even if the meaning changes.