Talk:Google: Difference between revisions

(31 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)

Line 17:

reCaptcha- the automatic checkbox ("I am human") has been claimed to use advanced algorithms to identify users against bots (see: generative AI detectors, which would be a topic I think valid for this wiki, considering their use in school and the expectedly high false positive rates they can produce hurting students' reputation without cause). However it has been tested that the captcha instead prefers to accept users running Chromium web browsers more frequently than alternatives, providing a bias in what should otherwise be an unbiased test. Impacts user experience and priorities users based on their web browser as a possible way to influence users into choosing Chromium.

== Android System Safety Core ==

==Android System Safety Core==

On or around February 10th, 2025, Louis uploaded a video that has since been deleted regarding the application silently installed on Google Play Services-enabled devices, "Consider uninstalling client side scanning utility from your android phone; androidsystemsafetycore".

Line 26:

Allegedly it all happens locally, but it is hard to trust a silently added proprietary blob that is designed to be used invisibly in many applications. I feel like it is a severe enough risk to be addressed on this page or as a separate wiki page.

:Created page as a jumping off point: https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Android [[User:NDN|NDN]] ([[User talk:NDN|talk]]) 16:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

==Stadia shutdown==

In the interests of fairness, might be worth stating more explicitly what the refund included when Stadia was shut down, as it was a pretty decent attempt to make their customers whole (iirc it was a full and automatically applied refund of hardware, software and most subscriptions for anything paid over the lifetime of the device) [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 10:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

==Google Play Integrity screwing over custom ROMs==

Google has tightened its Play Integrity, previously named SafetyNet. Now, it requires all devices to be hardware backed to be certified by it's new standards. Custom ROMs like Lineage OS, Pixel OS and Graphene OS all have been affected by this issue. These custom ROMs now cannot access:

- banking apps

- chatgpt

- google wallet with its NFC tap to pay

- various mobile games like Pokemon GO

Source: https://www.androidauthority.com/google-play-integrity-hardware-attestation-3561592/

You could argue that it's for "security" but it doesn't actually make it more secure at all. Those who want to go past security checks like these already go past them through creating patches with rooted phones. And those who just want a phone without google, should have the right to have it their way. This change only serves to reduce user freedom and may signal a future where Google exerts complete, iron-fisted control over the Android ecosystem. [[User:Trunestor|Trunestor]] ([[User talk:Trunestor|talk]]) 13:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

==Play "Protect"==

I feel we should do a write-up on Google's hail mary to "protect" users, which in reality restricts consumer choice by ultimately disabling sideloading of apps and making Google a monopoly in app distrubution through their Google Play Store, which I recommend people to not use due having the living day lights of that crap having been enshittified. [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 18:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

:Turns out it was already done. So I copied the summary from that page and pasted it with reference to the page. [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 20:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

==anti-competitive stuff and JS==

===Search===

G Search on Firefox for Android is intentionally restricted by Google. See:

*[https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/discussions/3240 Infinite redirects]

*[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/google-search-fixer Addon]

Recently, they started blocking users who enable Desktop-Mode to use Google Lens without the app, saying "Update your browser". Desktop is necessary, because when G Search detects the device is Android, [[Forced_app_download|it redirects]] to the Google app (or Play Store, if not installed)

===JS===

Both Google search and Gmail login (not just Gmail, all G services) "require" [[JavaScript]] to work. This wasn't the case in 2023 (not sure if this began on 2024 or 2025) [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 20:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

:Rip my noscript extension, we need to get this on the wiki RIGHT NOW!! :( (joke)

:Seriously though, if it is actually necessary and there are reliable sources, then sure! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

::lmao. yeah I agree. It's not that big of a deal. But it raises privacy and security concerns, and it's related to [[bloatware]]:

::*https://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm

::*https://tonsky.me/blog/js-bloat

::[[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 06:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

::BTW, I wrote an (unfinished) blog-post about this with 20+ sources:

::*https://github.com/Rudxain/blog/blob/main/post/js-abuse.md

::*https://rudxain.github.io/blog/post/js-abuse

::The 1st link [https://github.com/Rudxain/Rudxain.github.io/issues/17 will break].

::When the 2nd breaks, remove the "/post" part.

::I'm posting both because the 1st one is "better" (for now) [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 22:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

:::as a noscript user, I agree [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

:* The inf-redir thing is linked in the JS article

:* I've [https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Forced_app_download&diff=prev&oldid=46925 mentioned the Lens thing on FADL]

:* JS requirement for Search is mentioned (on JS article), but not the login thing

:[[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 16:23, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

==they REALLY despise ad-blockers==

It's worth mentioning that G forbids any apps (on Play Store) that have the ''mere capability'' of blocking ads, even if the apps aren't presented as "ad-blockers". For example, [https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/eac1f8a29f56241965a75ae3e25eef9c715a7137/README.md?plain=1#L39 NetGuard], which has a <code>[[wikipedia:Hosts_(file)|/etc/hosts]]</code>-like domain-blocking feature in the GitHub release, was [https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/8a60a7b3f43af5db21d4bd4512bc541d21a8fc5d/ADBLOCKING.md?plain=1#L6 forced to be crippled in the play-store release] ([https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/8a60a7b3f43af5db21d4bd4512bc541d21a8fc5d/ADBLOCKING.md?plain=1#L105 alt line]), on the grounds of "system stability" or something (I can't remember)

[https://reddit.com/r/Android/comments/15y7g70/google_is_going_to_remove_netguard_from_the_play/ See also] [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 19:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

:Eeeek! That is definitely worth mentioning, maybe in its own article? [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 19:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not sure if it really needs its own article; why would it? [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 12:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

:I've linked this topic [[Talk:Android data collection|there]], but it didn't show up [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Talk:Google|here]] [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 12:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

::What Links Here doesn’t work like that. It counts all links to that place with the hyperlink format. So for example, if I link to the main google article like this: [[Main Page]], checking [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Main Page|the WLH for the main page]] this will show up in that list as I linked to it (if you get what I mean). [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks! It works now. I assumed the <code>#</code> didn't work for internal links [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 05:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

:[https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Google&diff=prev&oldid=46935 Done!] (found enough sources) [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 16:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

==G+ Name Policy controversy (2011)==

*[https://stilgherrian.com/only-one-name/right-google-you-stupid-cunts-this-is-simply-not-on/ Stilgherrian's blog post]

*[https://eev.ee/blog/2011/09/05/google-postdecrement/ eevee's blog post]

[[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 19:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

==Glaring mishandling of clear-cut hacking cases==

So far I have one incident that could be escalated into a paragraph in Google's article if there are any more similar incidents with comparable level of documentation.

TL;DR Google refuses to restore access to a known youtuber's gmail account despite huge public backlash, highly suspicious internet traffic, all conceivable proof of ownership and big public backlash. They even reached out to ask the hacked person to delete their original tweet (for their own safety ofc!) but can't do jack because of an apparently existing loophole that hackers used - claiming the account under the parental control of...itself?

Here are the relevant vids with info on the case

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOz6P91BTzU - the original incident report

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAevKYgCh5s - follow up after public backlash.

Sorry this is my first contribution to this place and I hope you guys can give me pointers on how to convert this info into something more useful and whether it belongs here in the first place. And if it does I'll try to invite the actual victim and the person who made the vids here so that they can cooperate and add more info. Cheers! [[User:Cowbless|Cowbless]] ([[User talk:Cowbless|talk]]) 09:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

== No account transfer ==

Google doesn't support "renaming" the main Gmail address of an account, it doesn't even support transferring all data between accounts. However, it does have an "export" feature. I'm not sure where in the article this should be mentioned.

Idea [https://zulip.consumerrights.wiki/#narrow/channel/4-discord-bridge/topic/introductions-and-questions/near/7810 from here] [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 02:56, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

== Gboard requires PIN to clear learned words ==

Since months (years?) ago, the Gboard [[Android]] app forces the user to input an ad-hoc randomly-generated 4digit sequence to delete all learned words. Asking the user for confirmation is fine, but I find it extremely questionable that the prompt is a PIN, as if deleting that data is a life-or-death situation [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 23:34, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 reCaptcha- the automatic checkbox ("I am human") has been claimed to use advanced algorithms to identify users against bots (see: generative AI detectors, which would be a topic I think valid for this wiki, considering their use in school and the expectedly high false positive rates they can produce hurting students' reputation without cause). However it has been tested that the captcha instead prefers to accept users running Chromium web browsers more frequently than alternatives, providing a bias in what should otherwise be an unbiased test. Impacts user experience and priorities users based on their web browser as a possible way to influence users into choosing Chromium.
-== Android System Safety Core ==
+==Android System Safety Core==
 On or around February 10th, 2025, Louis uploaded a video that has since been deleted regarding the application silently installed on Google Play Services-enabled devices, "Consider uninstalling client side scanning utility from your android phone; androidsystemsafetycore".
@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 Allegedly it all happens locally, but it is hard to trust a silently added proprietary blob that is designed to be used invisibly in many applications. I feel like it is a severe enough risk to be addressed on this page or as a separate wiki page.
+:Created page as a jumping off point: https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Android [[User:NDN|NDN]] ([[User talk:NDN|talk]]) 16:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
+==Stadia shutdown==
+In the interests of fairness, might be worth stating more explicitly what the refund included when Stadia was shut down, as it was a pretty decent attempt to make their customers whole (iirc it was a full and automatically applied refund of hardware, software and most subscriptions for anything paid over the lifetime of the device) [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 10:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
+==Google Play Integrity screwing over custom ROMs==
+Google has tightened its Play Integrity, previously named SafetyNet. Now, it requires all devices to be hardware backed to be certified by it's new standards. Custom ROMs like Lineage OS, Pixel OS and Graphene OS all have been affected by this issue. These custom ROMs now cannot access:
+- banking apps
+- chatgpt
+- google wallet with its NFC tap to pay
+- various mobile games like Pokemon GO
+Source: https://www.androidauthority.com/google-play-integrity-hardware-attestation-3561592/
+You could argue that it's for "security" but it doesn't actually make it more secure at all. Those who want to go past security checks like these already go past them through creating patches with rooted phones. And those who just want a phone without google, should have the right to have it their way. This change only serves to reduce user freedom and may signal a future where Google exerts complete, iron-fisted control over the Android ecosystem. [[User:Trunestor|Trunestor]] ([[User talk:Trunestor|talk]]) 13:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
+==Play "Protect"==
+I feel we should do a write-up on Google's hail mary to "protect" users, which in reality restricts consumer choice by ultimately disabling sideloading of apps and making Google a monopoly in app distrubution through their Google Play Store, which I recommend people to not use due having the living day lights of that crap having been enshittified. [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 18:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
+:Turns out it was already done. So I copied the summary from that page and pasted it with reference to the page. [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 20:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
+==anti-competitive stuff and JS==
+===Search===
+G Search on Firefox for Android is intentionally restricted by Google. See:
+*[https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/discussions/3240 Infinite redirects]
+*[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/google-search-fixer Addon]
+Recently, they started blocking users who enable Desktop-Mode to use Google Lens without the app, saying "Update your browser". Desktop is necessary, because when G Search detects the device is Android, [[Forced_app_download|it redirects]] to the Google app (or Play Store, if not installed)
+===JS===
+Both Google search and Gmail login (not just Gmail, all G services) "require" [[JavaScript]] to work. This wasn't the case in 2023 (not sure if this began on 2024 or 2025) [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 20:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
+:Rip my noscript extension, we need to get this on the wiki RIGHT NOW!! :( (joke)
+:Seriously though, if it is actually necessary and there are reliable sources, then sure! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
+::lmao. yeah I agree. It's not that big of a deal. But it raises privacy and security concerns, and it's related to [[bloatware]]:
+::*https://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm
+::*https://tonsky.me/blog/js-bloat
+::[[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 06:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
+::BTW, I wrote an (unfinished) blog-post about this with 20+ sources:
+::*https://github.com/Rudxain/blog/blob/main/post/js-abuse.md
+::*https://rudxain.github.io/blog/post/js-abuse
+::The 1st link [https://github.com/Rudxain/Rudxain.github.io/issues/17 will break].
+::When the 2nd breaks, remove the "/post" part.
+::I'm posting both because the 1st one is "better" (for now) [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 22:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
+:::as a noscript user, I agree [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
+:* The inf-redir thing is linked in the JS article
+:* I've [https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Forced_app_download&diff=prev&oldid=46925 mentioned the Lens thing on FADL]
+:* JS requirement for Search is mentioned (on JS article), but not the login thing
+:[[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 16:23, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
+==they REALLY despise ad-blockers==
+It's worth mentioning that G forbids any apps (on Play Store) that have the ''mere capability'' of blocking ads, even if the apps aren't presented as "ad-blockers". For example, [https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/eac1f8a29f56241965a75ae3e25eef9c715a7137/README.md?plain=1#L39 NetGuard], which has a <code>[[wikipedia:Hosts_(file)|/etc/hosts]]</code>-like domain-blocking feature in the GitHub release, was [https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/8a60a7b3f43af5db21d4bd4512bc541d21a8fc5d/ADBLOCKING.md?plain=1#L6 forced to be crippled in the play-store release] ([https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/8a60a7b3f43af5db21d4bd4512bc541d21a8fc5d/ADBLOCKING.md?plain=1#L105 alt line]), on the grounds of "system stability" or something (I can't remember)
+[https://reddit.com/r/Android/comments/15y7g70/google_is_going_to_remove_netguard_from_the_play/ See also] [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 19:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
+:Eeeek! That is definitely worth mentioning, maybe in its own article? [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 19:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
+::I'm not sure if it really needs its own article; why would it? [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 12:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
+:I've linked this topic [[Talk:Android data collection|there]], but it didn't show up [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Talk:Google|here]] [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 12:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
+::What Links Here doesn’t work like that. It counts all links to that place with the hyperlink format. So for example, if I link to the main google article like this: [[Main Page]], checking [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Main Page|the WLH for the main page]] this will show up in that list as I linked to it (if you get what I mean). [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
+:::Thanks! It works now. I assumed the <code>#</code> didn't work for internal links [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 05:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
+:[https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Google&diff=prev&oldid=46935 Done!] (found enough sources) [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 16:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
+==G+ Name Policy controversy (2011)==
+*[https://stilgherrian.com/only-one-name/right-google-you-stupid-cunts-this-is-simply-not-on/ Stilgherrian's blog post]
+*[https://eev.ee/blog/2011/09/05/google-postdecrement/ eevee's blog post]
+[[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 19:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
+==Glaring mishandling of clear-cut hacking cases==
+So far I have one incident that could be escalated into a paragraph in Google's article if there are any more similar incidents with comparable level of documentation.
+TL;DR Google refuses to restore access to a known youtuber's gmail account despite huge public backlash, highly suspicious internet traffic, all conceivable proof of ownership and big public backlash. They even reached out to ask the hacked person to delete their original tweet (for their own safety ofc!) but can't do jack because of an apparently existing loophole that hackers used - claiming the account under the parental control of...itself?
+Here are the relevant vids with info on the case
+https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOz6P91BTzU - the original incident report
+https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAevKYgCh5s - follow up after public backlash.
+Sorry this is my first contribution to this place and I hope you guys can give me pointers on how to convert this info into something more useful and whether it belongs here in the first place. And if it does I'll try to invite the actual victim and the person who made the vids here so that they can cooperate and add more info. Cheers!  [[User:Cowbless|Cowbless]] ([[User talk:Cowbless|talk]]) 09:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
+== No account transfer ==
+Google doesn't support "renaming" the main Gmail address of an account, it doesn't even support transferring all data between accounts. However, it does have an "export" feature. I'm not sure where in the article this should be mentioned.
+Idea [https://zulip.consumerrights.wiki/#narrow/channel/4-discord-bridge/topic/introductions-and-questions/near/7810 from here] [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 02:56, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
+== Gboard requires PIN to clear learned words ==
+Since months (years?) ago, the Gboard [[Android]] app forces the user to input an ad-hoc randomly-generated 4digit sequence to delete all learned words. Asking the user for confirmation is fine, but I find it extremely questionable that the prompt is a PIN, as if deleting that data is a life-or-death situation [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 23:34, 3 April 2026 (UTC)