However, I agree that it should be opt-in. Docs should be more explicit about that too, they should warn users about risks of going with that option. That excerpt mentioned in the article was rather misleading.

How about laptop manufacturers stop making shady deals with Microsoft to force its OS on everyone?

It’s crazy how many passes these companies get. A huge number of them are still selling high-end laptops with Intel chips because they signed agreements that effectively prohibit them from offering AMD variants.

Let's stop pretending like any of this is acceptable.

It reduces security of the app itself, but doesn't affect security of the phone by much.

I also get why they'd be desperate to fight bots. It's a weak excuse for not doing it better, but at least it makes some sense.

IMO headline is very misleading, and OP should have tried disabling all exploit protection options before jumping to any conclusions. PayPal isn't actively trying to block GrapheneOS as of now.

I had to update exploit protection after their latest update — I think it was enabling dynamic code loading via both memory and storage that did the trick.

Edit: checked now, I have also disabled secure app spawning.

If by "mainstream" Linux you mean something like postmarketOS, I'd suggest you look up reviews or give it a try yourself. A few months ago, people were reporting a hard time placing a call, taking a photo, etc.

I am kinda triggered by that comment because you make it look like it's easy or inexpensive. It's not.

I also came to Germany with just a suitcase and a backpack. I paid for my tickets, paid for mandatory health insurance that covered timeframe before I started my job, paid my rent, paid government for processing/issuing my residence permit, etc. I've paid taxes and health insurance every single month since then, haven't used any unemployment benefits once, took a single sick leave.

You might argue that I "stole a job", "worsened housing crisis", or something along these lines. But there are plenty of data points that disprove majority of such arguments.

Well then, let's regulate this instead? Advertising companies already make a pretty good guess about a person's age. It doesn't require 3rd parties and age verification.

But we won't — this isn't why identity checks are getting lobbied.

> I believe we should shift that liability to advertising.

I am confused. Are you saying that advertising companies should handle these identity checks? So let's just hand out a unique identifier to the companies who have monetary interest in this? Surely this will end well.

I often see them being on point and highlighting important details. Majority of custom roms aren't taking security seriously, so I don't think there's anything wrong with calling them out on that.

People are pushing back on this every single time. Maybe it's time legislators read the room instead? Is there a step for this too?

Do you have a different experience?