nobody is refusing to offer their sevices on linux because it is vulnerable

That's not quite true, though in that case it's about the service provider being unable to verify that the user isn't running a operating system configured or modified to work against the interests of the service provider.

No doubt it is for many. They're probably going to vote Democrat even if they find the candidate's stance on immigration unreasonably harsh because [insert long rant about plurality voting and the two-party system].

I have the impression quite a few Democratic voters are a bit anti-immigrant too.

easiest way to fix this would be to stop making voting a state by state thing

Maybe that's easy from a certain perspective, but passing the required constitutional amendment would be anything but.

Maybe, but the archetypal non-technical user, my mother does want to run a third-party ROM. Her phone is out of its official support period, and she knows that security updates are important and would like a way to get them. Most people, at least in wealthy countries do have a technical person in their lives they can ask things like that. She doesn't want to buy a new phone because it would be too big and lack a headphone jack, a position I share.

I had to recommend against running what I run (LineageOS, Magisk, Play Integrity Fix). Without PIF, too many apps will refuse to run on LineageOS. She doesn't need root for much else (maybe adblocking) and doesn't have the knowledge to make good decisions about whether to grant root permissions to an app that asks (Magisk doesn't have an allowlist-only mode, but it should). Finally, keeping root through an update is fussy. It's not hard, but it's an extra step that has to be done in the right order every week or two.

Unlike Firefox in 2024, a third-party Android build that's easy enough to install and isn't sabotaged by Safetynet would something many non-technical users care about: an extended useful life for their devices.

Last time I used one was because I forgot my physical wallet and needed to pay for something. I don't want to tell Google about my shopping habits, but I like to have options in case of emergency.

I'm running LineageOS (with GMS), Magisk, and Play Integrity Fix.

Can you cite examples of rooted smartphones leading to significant data breaches or financial losses? When the topic comes up, I always see hypotheticals, never examples of it actually happening.

It seems to me a good middle ground would be to make it reasonably easy (i.e. a magic button combination at boot followed by dire warnings and maybe manually typing in a couple dozen characters from a key signature) for users to add keys so that they can have a verified OS of their choice. Of course, there's very little profit motive to do such a thing.

Google doesn't want distributions of open source Android without Google services to be a viable option for mainstream users because that would reduce their ability to extract profits from the Android ecosystem.

While the focus is surely more on OEMs than end users at this point, I'm sure Google wants to keep the difficulty level for end users high enough that it remains niche.

I think the main reason third-party ROMs aren't more popular is that Google and certain app developers fuck with people who use them. The article addresses the difficulties later on, but comes up short in my view on just how much of a hassle it is for someone who isn't a tech enthusiast who wants, for example to keep an older phone up to date for security reasons.

I think the main motivation for Google is limiting user control over the experience. More user control leads to unprofitable behaviors like blocking ads and tracking, which is also the motivation for recent changes to the Chrome web browser that make content blocking extensions less effective. In all cases, companies that try to take away user control claim the motivation is security, usually for the benefit of the user.

Zero.

I mainly look at my subscribed feed, which contains mostly topics I want to see in communities moderated well enough I rarely see anybody being horrible.

He's already a convicted felon, and yet he remains free.

If you're referring to the Logan act, nobody has ever been convicted under it in more than two centuries, and it's probably unconstitutional. Is it bad that Trump chats with Putin? Absolutely. It is a crime? Unlikely.

Even if you did (don't eat batteries), the voltage range is much lower and you probably wouldn't feel anything.