Pleeease sign it pretty please
In 2027 Google will release a silent update (no OS update or restart, it is completely invisible) where you will not be able to run or install any app that doesn't have a thumbs up from Google.
For more information: https://keepandroidopen.org/
I cannot stress this enough.
I've been using chrome for years now but I'm thinking of dropping it since every time I use it now it gives really crappy results that don't even match the keywords I use. I suspect this is because they're really wanting to push people to use the AI overview and it just doesn't sit right with me. I tried putting -ai at the end of every search and it's just vaguely relevant stuff that doesn't match what I'm looking for! Any nice browsers that actually give you matching results?
I'd like to avoid Bing, DuckDuckGo and Brave if possible since I have my own issues with them.
Edit: NOT BROWSER, search engine! But go ahead and suggest browsers as well!
Youtube is becoming unusable lately. The ads are more frequent than ever. I feel like google is listening to me and throwing an add as soon as I step away from my computer.
At the same time the experience of youtube from 15 years ago was way better. E.g. no shorts forced, dislike counts, etc.
My question is: “Are there any good alternatives?”
I would happily pay for a sub not from google. Ideally one that costs somewhat less than 20 euros. But even 20 is fine to keep corporations away from profiting on invasion of my privacy.
Hi all, I am currently working on building something I have tried since a kid, a search engine with its own index. Most 'privacy focused' simply pass the query to google or bing (except brave search), or add a lot of ai in between the results. The index is still really small (so if any sites are missing please do add them via the form), but I am mostly wondering the following:
What would be needed for you to switch from your main search to one that's (possibly) more privacy friendly? And if you have any general suggestions/feedback/errors please let me know. It is available at https://puri.li
Is it any good? My phone doesn't support Graphene but it does support Lineage
There you have another reason why not to trust google. Their privacy settings are useless and google location history keeps sending data every day when I go out.
All privacy settings are set to block any location history including google maps. But it seems android can go around it even when I set the allow background data usage to disabled.
The new 24 hr wait to sideload has started rolling out. Prepare yourself accordingly.
Do you recommend any other alternatives?
Does anyone have experience with Ente Photos? Is the free plan good enough? Can you suggest any other alternatives? I currently have 1.76 GB of space occupied in Google Photos.
Edit: You should have your Remind Me's set past 30 days based upon the date for the next hearing. Don't want to give too much information on the exact date, but the court is backlogged right now and 30 days won't be enough.
This is a long story and I am a very rambly person, but if you're interested, fasten your seatbelts and live vicariously through me and my attempt to hold Google accountable.
Let me preface this by saying that I am not a lawyer/barrister/solicitor, I am not giving legal advice, and I'm just an average person that is sick of companies screwing over customers and getting away with it. I also have made this intentionally vague for anonymity purposes while this plays out.
As you may be aware, in June Google notified customers that they were going to be updating the privacy settings by retiring the "Web & App Activity" settings in favor of "Search Services History" and "Personalized Recommendations." In the email for this notification Google expressly stated:
>"If [Web & App Activity and Search Personalization settings] are currently on, these new settings will stay on. If they're off, the new settings will be off."
The email continued on to say that these changes would be coming "in the next coming days."
Well...me being me, and having a near rabid mistrust of companies immediately went into my Google Account to ensure the settings were off and I'm sure that you can guess what happened. The settings not only had already changed prior to the email notification (and not the coming days as stated), but I was also opted into these settings, when for years I have opted out of them.
I. Was. Pissed. I immediately opted out (something I never should have been opted into) and let sleeping dogs lie. After a week this topic was brought up on a Discord I'm in and that's when I looked at what data had been pulled and noticed that applications like Phone, Messages, Signal, Terminal, and others had been included in the most recent information sent to to Google.
Before the settings change, almost no data had been transferred, 0 bytes received, less than 300 bytes transmitted. From June 9th to June 17th, hundreds of thousands of bytes. Now, I'm not a person that puts stock into coincidences, and of course, correlation does not equal causation, but something was off.
Late June my phone was stolen so I ordered a new one as a stop gap while I decided if I wanted the Fold 8 or the Razr Fold to replace my Fold 7 and it arrived the next day. Since I just setup the phone, I pulled the phone's files again and the amount transferred had increased even more. This was a new phone, with less applications installed and not even 20 days after I ensured that I was opted out of the new privacy settings. This was my tipping point and I began drafting my documents and gathering my evidence and logs.
(A quick time out and let me make something clear here: I do not know exactly what data was transmitted. That's actually what I told the court. The server-side content and destination are Google's records, not mine. In my rider to the lead document, I wrote the following:
>Because the precise content and ultimate destination of the data reflected in Exhibit H is recorded on, and known only to, Defendant's own servers and infrastructure, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court direct Defendant to produce records sufficient to identify the destination, content, and purpose of the network transmissions reflected in Exhibits H and M occurring on and after June 9, 2026.
OK, Time In)
Where I live, we have ridiculously strong consumer protection laws, including one under which plaintiffs are eligible for the cost of the violation or a large amount per violation, whichever is greater. So with multiple dates that it seems this has been an issue I filed for the maximum amount allowed under small claims. Since I'm just an average person, it took me multiple tries to get the correct paperwork submitted, but the paperwork was finally accepted, Google was officially served, and the case was scheduled.
Fast forward and Google requests to postpone the hearing another 45+ days in order to research and "contact the Plaintiff" (spoiler alert: they never did). This was not acted upon by the court and no communication had been sent by Google to either me or the court during this period. But then six minutes before the courts closed for the day and the night before the case was scheduled to be heard Google submitted a motion to dismiss. In their motion Google stated that based on the Terms of Service dated July 30, 2026:
I responded that night with the following (I'm just going to paste it near-verbatim with small edits for anonymity and flow, apologies):
>Google has not established that the cited forum-selection clause was in effect at the time relevant to this dispute. Google's own Exhibit A is expressly dated "Effective July 30, 2026;” a date after the conduct alleged in the Complaint, and after the Complaint was filed. Google bears the burden on its own motion to establish that this version of the governing-law clause, rather than whatever version was in effect when Plaintiff's account was created in 2014 or when the conduct at issue occurred, actually applies. It has not done so.
>Google faults Plaintiff for lacking information that, by Google's own admission, exists only on Google's own servers. Paragraph 14 of the Complaint expressly states that "the precise content and ultimate destination of the data reflected in Exhibit H is recorded on, and known only to, Defendant's own servers and infrastructure," and asks this Court to direct Google to produce records identifying that destination, content, and purpose. Google opposes that very request while simultaneously arguing that Plaintiff's failure to supply the same information warrants dismissal. A defendant may not convert its own informational advantage into a pleading deficiency for the plaintiff.
>As with the forum clause, Google relies on a Terms of Service exhibit effective July 30, 2026, without establishing that this version, or this cap, applied to conduct occurring [previously].
>The private right of action provides an independent statutory remedy: a prevailing consumer is entitled to "[t]reble damages, or substantial amount per violation, whichever is greater," plus reasonable attorney's fees and punitive damages. This is a legislatively created remedy, not a contractual one, and a merchant's own form contract cannot be used to override a statutory consumer remedy.
I then further continued in my response:
>In any event, the Complaint is not conclusory. It identifies specific system packages (com.google.android.as and com.google.android.as.oss), named background services ("EchoJobService," "HeartbeatService," "AstreaGrpcService"), specific timestamps, and byte-level network transmission logs. Most significantly, the Complaint alleges that the same background operation recurred approximately forty minutes after Plaintiff disabled the relevant setting, and that the pattern repeated over the following eight days and was independently corroborated on a second device. Google's motion does not address this sequence.
>This pattern is consistent with conduct Google has previously resolved through state consumer-protection enforcement, including in this jurisdiction. Between 2022 and 2023, Google settled a series of state actions alleging that account settings displayed as "off" while the underlying tracking or personalization continued: (chart of six relevant settlements totaling over $600M in the US, as well as other fines worldwide)
The next day, we log into the court session and I'm ready to go after staying up late going through everything again and again. Google is present, I'm present, and judge is present, but the judge notes that there is a motion to dismiss, opposition to the motion to dismiss, and a request for a continuance. The judge says no to the continuance; however, because the judge was not prepared to rule on the motion to dismiss that came in the night before and has not had an opportunity to review the motion or the plaintiff's (my) opposition to the motion there is now another hearing on this set for the future.
I'm quite surprised that Google has fought this much on a small claims case that would have just been under the radar and never known until they started playing lawyer-ball, and in the words of Hank Hill, "don't play lawyer-ball, son."
I'll update if people are interested but wanted to share my story...
Hi everyone,
Today we are rolling out the first version of the advanced flow. The advanced flow gives power users the option to install unregistered apps (i.e. apps from developers who choose not to verify their identity) on certified Android devices without the use of ADB.
As a brief recap, Android will require all apps to be registered by verified developers in order for users to install them on certified Android devices. Developer verification links real-world entities with their Android applications, making it much harder for malicious actors to quickly distribute more harmful apps after we take the first one down.
Since verification launched in March, millions of apps have been registered already, covering nearly all installs on Google Play and a large majority of installs from outside of Google Play. Thus, most users’ experience of installing Android apps will not change at all. However, we recognize that some developers are choosing not to undergo verification and that some power users want the option to install apps from these developers, so we’re rolling out the first version of the advanced flow to provide this additional option.
We will initially verify app installations from Google Play, HONOR App Market, OPPO App Market, Galaxy Store, Palm Store, V-Appstore, and GetApps starting September 30, 2026 for users of certified Android devices in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand. In 2027, we will expand verification globally for all app installations on certified Android devices.
Ahead of the enforcement of developer verification, we’re rolling out the first version of the advanced flow so power users can choose to enable it early ahead of general availability. We’re still working to polish it, so please share your feedback with us!
Note: The advanced flow is:
Important: Enabling the advanced flow is a one-time process that will take 24 hours to complete and includes safeguards to help ensure you are not being coerced or pressured into turning off protections.
After enabling the advanced flow, you will have the option to install or update apps from unverified developers. You’ll still see a warning when you try to install or update an app from an unverified developer, but you can just tap “Install anyway.”
If for whatever reason you need to temporarily disable the advanced flow, you have a 10-minute window to re-enable it without going through the 24-hour waiting period again.
The gist: don't just switch providers, get you own domain.
Literally, the protection is turned off, yet it's still deleting WhatsApp, and it's the official version. but from apkmirror and i tried apkpure etc
Collection calls from CIMB / GLoan representatives might come from the following numbers.
Why you might need it and why its on this subreddit: Philippine loan apps on android gather contacts from phone unprompted so it is impossible for family members not to hear from collectors on small loans as small as 5 USD.
A lot go to collections even after you pay them.
Numbers:
09285139046
09480255979
09681457288
09480557683
09197193059
09171630148
09171246076
09687570419
09190726560
09489279174
09473106494
Tags: CIMB, GLOAN, 300% Interest Loans, Philippines, Harrasment
I disabled all Google apps, but the 'Disable' button for Play Services is greyed out on my device. Device admin settings didn't free it up, so I'm using Canta with Shizuku ADB I hate Google
