We have published an open letter to Google opposing the Android Developer Verification Program with over 30 organizations as signatories: https://keepandroidopen.org/open-letter/

[lexinova@cyberplace.social]

@keepandroidopen in my own case i sended message to all EU and my country MEP to ask EU to scrutinize this and prevent it to be enacted (at minimum in EU) (if EU block it other country will follow like for GDPR).

will forward any answer received (if i happen to receive one).

[keepandroidopen@techhub.social]

See also the complementary blog post: https://f-droid.org/2026/02/24/open-letter-opposing-developer-verification.html

[gorgon_zola@digitalcourage.social]

@keepandroidopen Keep fighting!

[jack@status.sexyferret.science]

@keepandroidopen cringe y'all broke asses can't come up with $5 between the what 6 fully funded european NGOs on this list?

[jack@status.sexyferret.science]

@keepandroidopen also because this medium is terminally unfunny i must emphasize I don't work at google... don't love them one bit

[derjoshder@bonn.social]

@keepandroidopen
For real, that might force me to revert from smartphone to good old mobile phone on next... uuhm, "upgrade".
We, as consumers, have the power to resist by just refusing to buy their stuff. I'd rather use a desktop app for Mastodon and kick Android once and for all than yielding to this. Most of my apps (by far) are from F-Droid anyway... TTBH.
That is, if that also applies to custom ROMs, as I never use the bloated org. OS anyway (choose phones for compatibility).

[maikel@vmst.io]

@keepandroidopen how's this even happening ? Didn't the EU force them both to allow 3rd-party stores ?

[docta_gervais@social.tchncs.de]

@maikel @keepandroidopen
They did, and the text also mentions that gatekeepers are allowed to take reasonable mesures to preserve the security of the platforms (here, Android). Technically, Google's announced change does not block third-party stores. It just forces them to go through another form of gatekeeping.

[maikel@vmst.io]

@docta_gervais this is the same as the no cookies policy.

We still get the cookies, just with extra annoying pop-ups where "no" is in very small print or directly hidden.

We need better legislators with better knowledge of how tech works.

@keepandroidopen

[docta_gervais@social.tchncs.de]

@maikel @keepandroidopen

DMA III. 6.4: "The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper."

Regulation - 2022/1925 - EN - EUR-Lex

(eur-lex.europa.eu)

[docta_gervais@social.tchncs.de]

@maikel @keepandroidopen
The EU did learn something from the cookie debacle in GDPR: in the DMA regulation that came after they explicitly specified that (another) user consent could only be asked once per year. That avoids the "ask users until they say yes" problem.

[maikel@vmst.io]

@docta_gervais thank you @keepandroidopen

[vekkq@social.vivaldi.net]

@maikel @docta_gervais Its the businesses who decide what they collect and process. GDPR makes them only report those to you, which is a good thing. The bad thing is that soo many businesses collect your data and they take any excuse they get.

[weizenspreu@chaos.social]

@maikel @docta_gervais @keepandroidopen Recital 50 Subparagraph 2 of the DMA: „[…] The gatekeeper should be prevented from implementing such measures as a default setting or as pre-installation.“

[cnx@awkward.place]

@captainepoch@stereophonic.space, is @husky@stereophonic.space interested in signing?

[ruisan@masto.es]

@derderwish @keepandroidopen context?

[derderwish@social.chaotikum.org]

@ruisan @keepandroidopen Sorry, it was meant to be a response to another post. ‍

[ruisan@masto.es]

@derderwish @keepandroidopen no problem