▲ 474 ▼ Play Store blocks AuroraStore, hurting GrapheneOS users (gitlab.com) submitted 3 weeks ago by FirmDistribution@lemmy.world to c/opensource@lemmy.ml 177 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] artyom@piefed.social -12 points 3 weeks ago (14 children) How is it misleading? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Chewy7324@discuss.tchncs.de 40 points 3 weeks ago (13 children) Google actively blocking Aurora Store would be much worse than them simply changing their backend. The latter can likely be quickly resolved while the former might lead to a cat and mouse game, where it gets increasingly difficult for Aurora Store to continue to work. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [+] artyom@piefed.social -11 points 3 weeks ago (12 children) And what makes you think it's the latter and not the former? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (8 children) Is this sealioning? 🫴🦋 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] artyom@piefed.social -11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (7 children) LOL yes, anyone asking you questions you can't answer about the shit you're saying is "sealioning". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (6 children) The thing is, it's already been answered. The conclusion was made based on reading the gitlab discussion. 🤷♂️ I didn't read that myself but maybe try doing that if you're curious. 😉🫶 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 3 weeks ago (5 children) The thing is, the conclusion is not going to be in any discussion outside of a Google internal chat or meeting. We know what happened, we don't know why it happened, or what it means. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Harmonics041@feddit.uk 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Maybe a gorilla in the woods found a Google employees laptop and implemented the change. We will never know unless we go into the jungle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 3 weeks ago ...wat permalink fedilink source parent [–] victorz@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) The thing is, you asked what made them think that, and I told you it was already answered. 👍🦋 But I guess you were asking a rhetorical question all along? 🙂 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) And then I told you that it wasn't answered. No, it was clearly not rhetorical. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago Huh, weird. permalink fedilink source parent [–] HowdyLemmy@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) The linked gitlab discussion suggests it. There's intermittent successes, and the particular errors align with a backend change. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 2 points 3 weeks ago* (1 child) Yes. once again, we know there was a backend change. The question is "why was it changed"? We already know Google manipulates YouTube for the explicit purpose of breaking Firefox, adblockers and yt-dlp. Who's to say this is different? Certainly not anyone on GitLab. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] HowdyLemmy@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 weeks ago Ah, I think I understand you a bit better. It's true that the reason for the change is unclear, and it definitely could be malicious. However, that lack of clarity is what makes the OP article title misleading. The article title claims the certainty that Google has blocked the Aurora store outright. I think you'll agree that frequent errors with some successes is not the same as an intentional, simple block. We may find that, yes, Google is intentionally blocking Aurora. It is just misleading to say so at this point. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Chewy7324@discuss.tchncs.de 40 points 3 weeks ago (13 children) Google actively blocking Aurora Store would be much worse than them simply changing their backend. The latter can likely be quickly resolved while the former might lead to a cat and mouse game, where it gets increasingly difficult for Aurora Store to continue to work. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [+] artyom@piefed.social -11 points 3 weeks ago (12 children) And what makes you think it's the latter and not the former? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (8 children) Is this sealioning? 🫴🦋 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] artyom@piefed.social -11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (7 children) LOL yes, anyone asking you questions you can't answer about the shit you're saying is "sealioning". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (6 children) The thing is, it's already been answered. The conclusion was made based on reading the gitlab discussion. 🤷♂️ I didn't read that myself but maybe try doing that if you're curious. 😉🫶 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 3 weeks ago (5 children) The thing is, the conclusion is not going to be in any discussion outside of a Google internal chat or meeting. We know what happened, we don't know why it happened, or what it means. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Harmonics041@feddit.uk 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Maybe a gorilla in the woods found a Google employees laptop and implemented the change. We will never know unless we go into the jungle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 3 weeks ago ...wat permalink fedilink source parent [–] victorz@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) The thing is, you asked what made them think that, and I told you it was already answered. 👍🦋 But I guess you were asking a rhetorical question all along? 🙂 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) And then I told you that it wasn't answered. No, it was clearly not rhetorical. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago Huh, weird. permalink fedilink source parent [–] HowdyLemmy@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) The linked gitlab discussion suggests it. There's intermittent successes, and the particular errors align with a backend change. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 2 points 3 weeks ago* (1 child) Yes. once again, we know there was a backend change. The question is "why was it changed"? We already know Google manipulates YouTube for the explicit purpose of breaking Firefox, adblockers and yt-dlp. Who's to say this is different? Certainly not anyone on GitLab. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] HowdyLemmy@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 weeks ago Ah, I think I understand you a bit better. It's true that the reason for the change is unclear, and it definitely could be malicious. However, that lack of clarity is what makes the OP article title misleading. The article title claims the certainty that Google has blocked the Aurora store outright. I think you'll agree that frequent errors with some successes is not the same as an intentional, simple block. We may find that, yes, Google is intentionally blocking Aurora. It is just misleading to say so at this point. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] artyom@piefed.social -11 points 3 weeks ago (12 children) And what makes you think it's the latter and not the former? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (8 children) Is this sealioning? 🫴🦋 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] artyom@piefed.social -11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (7 children) LOL yes, anyone asking you questions you can't answer about the shit you're saying is "sealioning". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (6 children) The thing is, it's already been answered. The conclusion was made based on reading the gitlab discussion. 🤷♂️ I didn't read that myself but maybe try doing that if you're curious. 😉🫶 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 3 weeks ago (5 children) The thing is, the conclusion is not going to be in any discussion outside of a Google internal chat or meeting. We know what happened, we don't know why it happened, or what it means. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Harmonics041@feddit.uk 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Maybe a gorilla in the woods found a Google employees laptop and implemented the change. We will never know unless we go into the jungle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 3 weeks ago ...wat permalink fedilink source parent [–] victorz@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) The thing is, you asked what made them think that, and I told you it was already answered. 👍🦋 But I guess you were asking a rhetorical question all along? 🙂 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) And then I told you that it wasn't answered. No, it was clearly not rhetorical. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago Huh, weird. permalink fedilink source parent [–] HowdyLemmy@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) The linked gitlab discussion suggests it. There's intermittent successes, and the particular errors align with a backend change. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 2 points 3 weeks ago* (1 child) Yes. once again, we know there was a backend change. The question is "why was it changed"? We already know Google manipulates YouTube for the explicit purpose of breaking Firefox, adblockers and yt-dlp. Who's to say this is different? Certainly not anyone on GitLab. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] HowdyLemmy@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 weeks ago Ah, I think I understand you a bit better. It's true that the reason for the change is unclear, and it definitely could be malicious. However, that lack of clarity is what makes the OP article title misleading. The article title claims the certainty that Google has blocked the Aurora store outright. I think you'll agree that frequent errors with some successes is not the same as an intentional, simple block. We may find that, yes, Google is intentionally blocking Aurora. It is just misleading to say so at this point. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (8 children) Is this sealioning? 🫴🦋 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] artyom@piefed.social -11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (7 children) LOL yes, anyone asking you questions you can't answer about the shit you're saying is "sealioning". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (6 children) The thing is, it's already been answered. The conclusion was made based on reading the gitlab discussion. 🤷♂️ I didn't read that myself but maybe try doing that if you're curious. 😉🫶 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 3 weeks ago (5 children) The thing is, the conclusion is not going to be in any discussion outside of a Google internal chat or meeting. We know what happened, we don't know why it happened, or what it means. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Harmonics041@feddit.uk 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Maybe a gorilla in the woods found a Google employees laptop and implemented the change. We will never know unless we go into the jungle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 3 weeks ago ...wat permalink fedilink source parent [–] victorz@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) The thing is, you asked what made them think that, and I told you it was already answered. 👍🦋 But I guess you were asking a rhetorical question all along? 🙂 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) And then I told you that it wasn't answered. No, it was clearly not rhetorical. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago Huh, weird. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] artyom@piefed.social -11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (7 children) LOL yes, anyone asking you questions you can't answer about the shit you're saying is "sealioning". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (6 children) The thing is, it's already been answered. The conclusion was made based on reading the gitlab discussion. 🤷♂️ I didn't read that myself but maybe try doing that if you're curious. 😉🫶 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 3 weeks ago (5 children) The thing is, the conclusion is not going to be in any discussion outside of a Google internal chat or meeting. We know what happened, we don't know why it happened, or what it means. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Harmonics041@feddit.uk 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Maybe a gorilla in the woods found a Google employees laptop and implemented the change. We will never know unless we go into the jungle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 3 weeks ago ...wat permalink fedilink source parent [–] victorz@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) The thing is, you asked what made them think that, and I told you it was already answered. 👍🦋 But I guess you were asking a rhetorical question all along? 🙂 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) And then I told you that it wasn't answered. No, it was clearly not rhetorical. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago Huh, weird. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (6 children) The thing is, it's already been answered. The conclusion was made based on reading the gitlab discussion. 🤷♂️ I didn't read that myself but maybe try doing that if you're curious. 😉🫶 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 3 weeks ago (5 children) The thing is, the conclusion is not going to be in any discussion outside of a Google internal chat or meeting. We know what happened, we don't know why it happened, or what it means. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Harmonics041@feddit.uk 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Maybe a gorilla in the woods found a Google employees laptop and implemented the change. We will never know unless we go into the jungle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 3 weeks ago ...wat permalink fedilink source parent [–] victorz@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) The thing is, you asked what made them think that, and I told you it was already answered. 👍🦋 But I guess you were asking a rhetorical question all along? 🙂 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) And then I told you that it wasn't answered. No, it was clearly not rhetorical. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago Huh, weird. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 3 weeks ago (5 children) The thing is, the conclusion is not going to be in any discussion outside of a Google internal chat or meeting. We know what happened, we don't know why it happened, or what it means. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Harmonics041@feddit.uk 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Maybe a gorilla in the woods found a Google employees laptop and implemented the change. We will never know unless we go into the jungle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 3 weeks ago ...wat permalink fedilink source parent [–] victorz@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) The thing is, you asked what made them think that, and I told you it was already answered. 👍🦋 But I guess you were asking a rhetorical question all along? 🙂 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) And then I told you that it wasn't answered. No, it was clearly not rhetorical. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago Huh, weird. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Harmonics041@feddit.uk 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Maybe a gorilla in the woods found a Google employees laptop and implemented the change. We will never know unless we go into the jungle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 3 weeks ago ...wat permalink fedilink source parent
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) The thing is, you asked what made them think that, and I told you it was already answered. 👍🦋 But I guess you were asking a rhetorical question all along? 🙂 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) And then I told you that it wasn't answered. No, it was clearly not rhetorical. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago Huh, weird. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] artyom@piefed.social -3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) And then I told you that it wasn't answered. No, it was clearly not rhetorical. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago Huh, weird. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HowdyLemmy@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) The linked gitlab discussion suggests it. There's intermittent successes, and the particular errors align with a backend change. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 2 points 3 weeks ago* (1 child) Yes. once again, we know there was a backend change. The question is "why was it changed"? We already know Google manipulates YouTube for the explicit purpose of breaking Firefox, adblockers and yt-dlp. Who's to say this is different? Certainly not anyone on GitLab. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] HowdyLemmy@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 weeks ago Ah, I think I understand you a bit better. It's true that the reason for the change is unclear, and it definitely could be malicious. However, that lack of clarity is what makes the OP article title misleading. The article title claims the certainty that Google has blocked the Aurora store outright. I think you'll agree that frequent errors with some successes is not the same as an intentional, simple block. We may find that, yes, Google is intentionally blocking Aurora. It is just misleading to say so at this point. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] artyom@piefed.social 2 points 3 weeks ago* (1 child) Yes. once again, we know there was a backend change. The question is "why was it changed"? We already know Google manipulates YouTube for the explicit purpose of breaking Firefox, adblockers and yt-dlp. Who's to say this is different? Certainly not anyone on GitLab. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] HowdyLemmy@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 weeks ago Ah, I think I understand you a bit better. It's true that the reason for the change is unclear, and it definitely could be malicious. However, that lack of clarity is what makes the OP article title misleading. The article title claims the certainty that Google has blocked the Aurora store outright. I think you'll agree that frequent errors with some successes is not the same as an intentional, simple block. We may find that, yes, Google is intentionally blocking Aurora. It is just misleading to say so at this point. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HowdyLemmy@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 weeks ago Ah, I think I understand you a bit better. It's true that the reason for the change is unclear, and it definitely could be malicious. However, that lack of clarity is what makes the OP article title misleading. The article title claims the certainty that Google has blocked the Aurora store outright. I think you'll agree that frequent errors with some successes is not the same as an intentional, simple block. We may find that, yes, Google is intentionally blocking Aurora. It is just misleading to say so at this point. permalink fedilink source parent