Readit News logoReadit News
ActualHacker commented on     · Posted by u/ActualHacker
ActualHacker · a year ago
As a developer, I’ve spent years building and maintaining my app to meet Google’s policies and user expectations. Recently, I discovered today that users logging in with Google see very scary warnings when opening links through in-app browsers in my app.

Here’s the kicker: the warnings are based on the user-agent, as Google quietly admits in the fine print. This means they know the issue is with Samsung, Xiaomi, and custom Android ROMs' in-app browsers not adhering to their ‘secure browsing’ standards. But instead of addressing it, they’re happy to pass the buck and blame the one person who has zero control over the situation: the developer.

I’m already in a high-risk industry, so this has likely caused substantial, unknowable losses—and it could even be argued that it’s defamatory. These warnings unfairly place blame on me, tanking user trust and damaging reputations, even though Google knows it’s not my fault.

By explicitly suggesting that our apps are unsafe, Google is punishing developers for their inability to control Android’s ecosystem fragmentation while forcing users to trust the false narrative that “it’s the app’s fault.”

If any starving lawyers want to start a class action, consider me your first lead.

Base64 + ROT13: em5leC53bnBib2ZyYTc2QGNlYmdiYS56cg==

ActualHacker · a year ago
In case you think this is just me whining: no its impacted plenty of other apps:

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/40591090/403-error-thats...

The fact that you can "fix" it by forging your user-agent demonstrates that its a useless policy change, and does nothing to protect users, while needlessly casting doubts on apps who comply with policies.

ActualHacker commented on     · Posted by u/ActualHacker
ActualHacker · a year ago
As a developer, I’ve spent years building and maintaining my app to meet Google’s policies and user expectations. Recently, I discovered today that users logging in with Google see very scary warnings when opening links through in-app browsers in my app.

Here’s the kicker: the warnings are based on the user-agent, as Google quietly admits in the fine print. This means they know the issue is with Samsung, Xiaomi, and custom Android ROMs' in-app browsers not adhering to their ‘secure browsing’ standards. But instead of addressing it, they’re happy to pass the buck and blame the one person who has zero control over the situation: the developer.

I’m already in a high-risk industry, so this has likely caused substantial, unknowable losses—and it could even be argued that it’s defamatory. These warnings unfairly place blame on me, tanking user trust and damaging reputations, even though Google knows it’s not my fault.

By explicitly suggesting that our apps are unsafe, Google is punishing developers for their inability to control Android’s ecosystem fragmentation while forcing users to trust the false narrative that “it’s the app’s fault.”

If any starving lawyers want to start a class action, consider me your first lead.

Base64 + ROT13: em5leC53bnBib2ZyYTc2QGNlYmdiYS56cg==

ActualHacker commented on WordPress.org bans WP Engine   techcrunch.com/2024/09/25... · Posted by u/openplatypus
ActualHacker · a year ago
I'm long on this backfiring

Petty, and befitting

WP is trash, always has been

WPEngine is a functional product on the other hand

ActualHacker commented on WP Engine is not WordPress   wordpress.org/news/2024/0... · Posted by u/pentagrama
ActualHacker · a year ago
Says the company with a competing product

Dead Comment

ActualHacker commented on     · Posted by u/wfme
ActualHacker · 2 years ago
How do you like them Apples
ActualHacker commented on U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhone monopoly   nytimes.com/2024/03/21/te... · Posted by u/jcfrei
ActualHacker · 2 years ago
Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon should be 500 companies, not 5
ActualHacker commented on Airbnb is banning indoor security cameras   theverge.com/2024/3/11/24... · Posted by u/matbilodeau
digging · 2 years ago
Making small changes to policy like this will continue to have no effect on the negative externalities of AirBNB rentals.

Will this improve guest privacy? No, hidden cameras are too difficult to detect and too easy to install.

Will this prevent AirBNBs becoming party houses/apartments in residential areas? No, obviously not, since that's apparently already banned.

Will this collect commercial taxes from investment property owners illegally renting out AirBNBs in residential zones? Of course not.

Et cetera.

ActualHacker · 2 years ago
But they get to remind everyone that they're the "good guys", and they're "trying"

Dead Comment

u/ActualHacker

KarmaCake day29June 8, 2023View Original