tomalley8342

You are likely thinking of google play protect, which does the same verification on their platform's end (to try to remove bad actor developer accounts as soon as possible), and the local device end as well (to remove said developers apps if they are already installed on your device). But yes, at the base level, what arrives on your phone from the play store are just signed apk files. That's why mirror sites like apkmirror or apkpure can do what they do, by extracting said apks after they have been released onto the play store.

The signing step you see at the end of each revanced install will require a registered google developer account going forward. The question of who will be brave enough to submit their real life information to sign revanced apps, as well as how long those accounts will last are anyone's guess.

How is this going to be enforced if you are just downloading apks? It states they will enforce verification across sources outside of the play store. This doesn’t sound possible unless they just make stock android unable to side load

apks will have to be cryptographically signed through Google's developer console, and this signature will be checked by the operating system at install time regardless of where you got the apk from. It's like how windows has signed applications for smartscreen, except in this case all applications must be signed through Google, and in order to sign it, you have to let Google know where you live, and unsigned applications will simply be denied instead of just being presented with a warning.

They got a forge like level editor this time around

Although personally I suspect people are going to come up with a better version of the game in battlefield via portal.

every year they come out with a game to dethrone tarkov, and every year the game to dethrone tarkov flops while tarkov keeps going strong, lol.

Well, until we abolish capitalism, that’s the state of things.

I can see that things are the way things are. Accepting it is a different matter.

Unless you feel like Nazis MUST be freely given access to everything too?

To me, the "access" that I am referring to (the interface with which you gain access to a service) and that "access" (your behavior once you have gained access to a service) are different topics. The same distinction can be made with the concern over DoS attacks mentioned earlier in the thread. The user's behavior of overwhelming a site's traffic is the root concern, not the interface that the user is connecting with.

How “open” a website is, is up to the owner, and that’s all.

As someone who registered this account on this platform in response to Reddit's API restrictions, it would be hypocritical of me to accept such a belief.

DoS attacks are already a crime, so of course the need for some kind of solution is clear. But any proposal that gatekeeps the internet and restricts the freedoms with which the user can interact with it is no solution at all. To me, the openness of the web shouldn't be something that people just consider, or are amenable to. It should be the foundation in which all reasonable proposals should consider as a principle truth.

Nah, that would also mean using Newpipe, YoutubeDL, Revanced, and Tachiyomi would be a crime, and it would only take the re-introduction of WEI to extend that criminalization to the rest of the web ecosystem. It would be extremely shortsighted and foolish of me to cheer on the criminalization of user spoofing and browser automation because of this.

Steam installs a system level background service to avoid UAC prompts. There was a privilege escalation vulnerability exploiting this service disclosed in 2019.

I did not say that kernel level anti cheats makes cheating impossible. The improvement in the experience is not nothing. You would not understand unless you played both for yourself.

https://www.faceit.com/en