this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2025
798 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
74496 readers
3803 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That didn’t answer my question. M
The answer is no. It's not phrased like that. But it's all about ensuring free competition in digital markets. The sole purpose of Google's move here is to hinder competition in their own digital market, and to keep control over it.
So the law does not have a paragraph stating that "unsigned software must be allowed", but it has a bunch of other paragraphs that can be used to strike down on monopolistic behaviour.
Google are aware of the law, and will try to find a loophole by designing a system that they believe technically complies with it. Then someone will sue them, it will end up in the European court, and the European court will in all likelyhood tell Google to get fucked.
It seems american tech companies think they can get away with anything because that's how it works in the US. We are repeatedly seeing that this is not how it works in Europe: the Court of Justice tends to care deeply about the intention of the law, as well as the perceived consequences of their rulings. And they don't seem to care all that much about American capitalists.
But to answer your question very simply: No, it doesn't. But thankfully that doesn't matter at all.
I feel like there should independent signing authorities that the major platforms honor. But that’s its own can of worms. Who runs them, is it the government? A non-profit? How do we prevent corruption of that entity, etc.
And yeah, the tech companies have raced ahead of comprehension. At least the comprehension that reasonable and good lawmakers have. At the same time, it’s increasingly looking like the terrible people in power know just how far ahead tech is. (Thiel)
You can't make laws for every single possible future reality. We need courts that uphold laws even when billionaires try to dodge them using shady techniques. The problem is that big tech often gets away with murder because they can afford expensive lawyers. Especially in the US laws are essentially meaningless for the rich. This is not so much the case in Europe.
I have heard some positive signals from the European Court of Justice that they are taking the challenge from big tech seriously and that they are going the extra miles to understand these issues. If you're particularly interested, many judges talk about this in the Borderlines podcast series by Berkley law. But it gets really dry really fast haha.
I don't believe in signing authorities. It's not effective - Google can't even keep malware off the play store - and it's an authoritarian move. Hell, most apps in the play store spy on their users, profiling usage to sell to advertisers along with ID codes that makes it possible to combine data between apps and build detailed profiles of individuals. The problem is not apps that are not signed - the problem is the whole economy of apps that work as Google intend them to.
Also, it's a basic question of rights. It's my phone, I bought the hardware, I own it, I install whatever the fuck I want on it.