Slashdot Mirror
Samsung's AdBlock Fast Removed From the Play Store (androidheadlines.com)
New submitter Alexander Maxham writes with the news reported at Android Headlines that Samsung's ad-blocking Android app called AdBlock Fast "was apparently ousted from the Play Store for violating section 4.4 of the Developer Distribution Agreement, stating that an app cannot disrupt or interfere with devices, networks or other parties' apps and services. (Also noted by Engadget.)
Saw that one coming. Oh well at least sideloading works.
The F-Droid app store allows ad blockers. These are just two:
https://f-droid.org/repository...
https://f-droid.org/repository...
F-Droid only contains free and open source apps. Each of them is fully built from source. https://f-droid.org/
So, let me get this straight: Apple is encouraging iOS users to use ad blockers by adding explicit and specific support for them to Safari, while Google is trying to erase ad blockers from existence...
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
app cannot disrupt or interfere with devices, networks or other parties' apps and services.
Oooh, ooh, can an app mess with my internet connection by loading many ads? So anything that uses the device bandwidth excessively could also be banned now?
Pull yourself together.
This is why Android isn't really Open Source in spirit. It is as closed as Apple is.
Hardly. Even on a non-rooted device all you have to do is tick "Allow untrusted sources" in the settings and then you can install stuff outside of Play Market as much as you like. Play Market is closed, yes, but it's also a separate thing and not required for using an Android-device. iPhones and iPads and the likes, as far as I know, require doing a lot more than just ticking a single box to allow installation of things from outside of Apple's AppStore.
Is anyone really surprised they'd take down an ad-blocking program from their store?
Source: https://abc.xyz/investor/news/earnings/2015/Q4_google_earnings/index.html
Google is an advertising company. Effective ad blockers will never be allowed on a platform they control, end of story. I'm surprised this made it onto the Play Store to begin with.
AOSP _is_ open source. There exist projects which only base on AOSP and build it for your device. You then can decide whether to install the play store app, or whether you want to install alternative app stores, all independent from google. They all run on the android platform. Yes, most of android devices ship with the play store, but you still have the option to completely ignore it.
Android is not as open source as iOS. iOS is completely closed, and there are no good pure-open-source alternatives. Android is rather as open source as desktop computers. They ship with windows (most of them do), but still you have the option to install fully open source operating systems on it (like linux).
There even exists an only-open source app store: F-Droid. They only allow apps which solely have open source dependencies on their store. All apps that rely on one of google's proprietary on-phone services are forbidden. This even disqualifies many apps that are in theory open source, but which require some of google's on phone services (most prominent example is the signal app, developed by twitter).
Except there's not only the play store, but it allows 3rd party apps to be loaded as well as competing stores like the amazon store.
While i don't agree with Google Play's policy, there's at least a choice, which is the world of difference between Apple and Google.
It strikes me that "in spirit" is just a sort of goalposting shifting term, very convenient to trot out when you feel like you might be losing an argument, but having absolutely zero utility for describing anything at all.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Best remove all of those apps too then, as they to disrupt in a similar way.
Yeah yeah, but for the majority of Android deployments Android means AOSP+Play Store. Don't kid yourself.
AOSP is missing a hell of a lot more than the play store.
There is no choice: it is controlled by a single corporation. Google, Inc. Android is not Open Source in spirit.
It isn't goalposting. I put it in my original post you corporate apologist.
Oh yeah, all you have to do is this and that.
"This and that" is tick one box, that is present in the settings.
That is why I say "in spirit"
And you are wrong. If they were the same "in spirit" they wouldn't GIVE you the option to load apps from anywhere else on a silver platter.
Android is about as open as iOS.
No, android is a LOT more open than iOS.
Can I opt to use an alternative app store like fdroid or the humblebundle store on android? Yes, I can. Its officially supported. Can I do that on ios? No way, not without literally breaking ios.
Can I buy a game for android directly from the developer, on his website, download it and install it? Yup, I can do that if i want to. Can I do that on ios? Nope.
Can I download the source for android modify it and flash it to my device with the full support for doing so provided by the manufacturer (although obviously they'll no longer support the operating system I install). On some devices from some manufacturers: yes, you can. With Apple, on any device -- no. The software cannot be downloaded and modified, and no they do not support allowing you load any customizations you might make at all, period, ever.
To say they are the same even "in spirit" is simply... lying.
I don't know what Samsung's ad blocker is doing differently, but Eyeo's Adblock Browser is still available in the Play Store. I have it on my Nexus - no problems, and it makes browsing much nicer. The Android version of Firefox also supports ad blockers. But, people gotta hate on Google.
I'd rather have ads then paywalls. Youtube is now trying it with the "red" program & if that's the case say good bye to a free internet.
Could ba a good argument against Android.
There are a SHITLOAD of apps on there that interfere with other apps all the time.
Hell, there are god knows how many process and system optimizers out there.
Google being Google as usual.
I don't even mind ads as long as they aren't abusive.
I blocked all youtube ads because fuck that noise. Those pop-over ads can get 10 kinds of fucked.
Not to mention the pre-ad ads. Only Google can be both shitty and nice at the same time. It is like stabbing you with an anaesthetic-coated knife.
All plugin ads are also disabled by default since they are all click2play.
JS ads as well. Too abusive. I will never enable them until a sub-spec is created exclusively for ads that limits the bullshit they can do. (similar to how web workers have a sub-spec without all the HTML, DOM and other stuff on top)
Pop-[anythings] are an obvious.
Abusively flashy GIFs. ANY video ads outside video sites, any audio ads outside audio sites.
Everything else, I am fine with. Text ads. Static images, Low-FPS simple GIFs. Video on video, audio on audio.
> Oh yeah, all you have to do is this and that. That is why I say "in spirit". Android is about as open as iOS. Linux is Open.
all except for that inconvenient detail that you just glossed over.
They allow for alternate sources of apps. The method of allowing this is so simple that even a blithering idiot (or an Apple user) can manage it.
Conceptually, it's pretty similar to adding a PPA to Ubuntu.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Yes, most of android devices ship with the play store, but you still have the option to completely ignore it.
No, you don't have that option as long as it's installed. Play store will update apps on your device that it didn't install. Install Firefox from F-Droid, and googleplay will update it. There's no way to remove it. The only way to get rid of Play, is to install a ROM that doesn't have it pre-installed.
The Play Store and other Google core apps are not free, not open source, etc. They're to be bundled with Android, the locked-down, not free, not open source mobile OS. OEMs have to pay Google to get access to these apps as well as pay Google to get access to Android.
You have the option of downloading it illegally from someone who dumped it from their own phone, got it from "somewhere, wink wink", etc. Alternatively, you can download a custom ROM with it baked in from someone who did that step for you. I DGAF about downloading it illegally, but let's not claim that AOSP+Google's apps are a free and open option.
... an app cannot disrupt or interfere with devices, networks or other parties' apps and services.
I imagine these rules are meant to apply to unintentional/unknown actions, not ones by design for which the user specifically installed the app to perform. Otherwise, all those call/text/spam blocker apps (like Mr. Number) need to go, 'cause they're interfering with things too...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Where is the APK? Play store is not the only app source for android devices.
So technically, Anti-virus apps should be banned from the Play Store because they "disrupt or interfere" with a virus-containing app? lol
There is no choice: it is controlled by a single corporation. Google, Inc. Android is not Open Source in spirit.
this shitposter sure loves to repeat himself. silence that mouth by eating some cock.
The only app for which this is true is Firefox however. All other apps on F-Droid are built by F-droid itself. Firefox isn't built by f-droid team out of multiple reasons, and is only kept inside the store because of its popularity, and the lack of alternatives.
But yeah, as long as the play store is installed, google essentially has root access over your phone, as gapps are (almost) always installed as system apps, and those apps can trivially become root to do stuff.
Oh yeah, all you need to do is tick one box (which is hidden deep in the settings). Give me a break. Only 2% of Android users know this setting exists. And Google knows it. That isnt in the Open Source spirit and you know it.
OH yeah, because my grandmother can add a "PPA to Ubuntu" whatever that is. 98% of android users don't know what sideloading is. Give me a break.
Android is not Open Source in spirit.
You keep saying that... but repeating yourself does not make you right.
AOSP follows the "cathedral" approach of open source. gapps are closed and proprietary, that's true, and most apps require one or another gapp. Google has managed to get most apps rely on their services one way or another, even though they published most of the OS as open source. This can't be said for microsoft, or iOS (yeah, the compiler, browser engine and the kernel are open source, but what else?), so kudos to google for this.
Yes, Android is proprietary, but I still like that almost the whole OS is open source. Anyways, I wouldn't want to use the proprietary components anyways, e.g. their maps app, which sends the position I am interested in to google's servers. I use osmand, and have the full map on my device. I don't need to send google my position every time I look at the map, or tell google which route to drive, or etc. Or take the GCM service, which is good in thought, I don't deny that, but I don't trust an advertising company to run it, I prefer to have a free choice over this.
I'm comfortable with the fact that these apps are proprietary. I don't want spyware on my device. I don't want it to be integrated into the system and my ROM creator doesn't care to remove the spyware features. Its already now pretty common among CM users to download gapps onto their phones, even though its illegal, imagine the pressure from the community if the devs removed a spyware component from the open source part that rendered 90% of all apps unusable.
Probably your grandmother can't click "next next finish" on the usual windows installer either.
The "interfere with other apps" is because a good adblocker can block ads not just in your browser but everywhere on the box- they can deny web connections cleverly, so apps can't refresh their ad-pile.
On ios, none of these adblockers exist (well, maybe with a jailbreak)- the content blockers function in the ones that use safari to render (so web pages).
Android also offers other ways to get things like this on your phone.
It's just two radically different approaches. Google can behave like a general purpose computer with some fighting, but then you are worried about the standard drama of adminning your box. Apple fights this hard- it takes a jailbreak to actually do that kind of thing there, but they aren't hostile to ad blockers in the same way, even creating a class of application that can deny connections just for it.
You realise that if you try to install something that would be blocked by not having this checked, the dialog box that pops up actually links to the place in the settings to change it, right?
If you can't find it then, you have no placed operating any piece of technology built in the past 30 years
Who could have guessed that Google, a company that exists primarily to serve ads, would have a problem with something that blocks ads?
It's shocking and was completely unforeseen.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
it lacked the common element of google app store items... hidden spyware and malware and fifty popup ads on every app launch.
The open source community love everything Google.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Its sad when someone so young looses their imagination.
But you know what? Likely only 2% give a fuck about "The Open Source Spirit", have no interest in that, and don't want some screeching yowling loon telling them it's not open source enough.
So, before you keep going all RMS and howling about how it's not pure enough for you ... do kindly remember almost nobody else cares.
The rest of the world just rolls their eyes, tunes this shit out, and reaches for Candy Crush and Facebook.
Neither Google nor Apple are in the business of making phones to appease the rabid open source people. You may have to live with that fact.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I prefer the option being "default deny" rather than "default let users execute whatever shit they find on the net". On windows, there are tons of sites, with varying reputability, and even the larger ones offering you to install you some bloatware of theirs. On android you only have google (note the "only have", google is an ad company after all). I consider this better for the average person.
I can download the source of Android right now, and I can run commercial software on a "spiritual" Linux distro. So you're just talking rubbish, the kind of rubbish kooks who irritate their families at dinner.
"Do we have to invite him over, all he ever talks about is the righteous purity of open source..."
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Android has Firefox, and Firefox had Adblock Plus. I use an Android phone and I refuse to run any browser but Firefox on it. And I NEVER log on to Google's services in Firefox. Real Firefox isn't even available in iOS.
What's being left out is that Google is NOT blocking an Adblocker, (this was quickly covered by real tech news sites, some of which *gasp* actually reached out to Google to fact check before blindly parroting 'news'.) Instead, they are blocking Adblockers that violate Google's terms of use. (modifying system files, interfering with other apps, etc.) You are perfectly welcome to build, publish, and even sell ad blockers. You aren't permitted to break functionality of other apps.
This is why Android isn't really Open Source in spirit. It is as closed as Apple is. Corporate controlled is not Open.
What utter bullshit. You can side load applications and use alternative repositories, you can load custom firmware and you have access to the OS source code allowing you to come up with your own if you have the skills.
Please provide links to all the above for any iOS device. We're waiting. Oh, you can't, because you're just a 10%er Apple shill.
So, before you keep going all RMS and howling about how it's not pure enough for you .
Even RMS doesn't seem to care about the setting being 'difficult to find. Especially since you can install your own version of the OS. His biggest worry is that some drivers are binary blobs.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
So much this i own a Samsung Galaxy S3 from 2012 and i run a Custom ROM with the newest Android (6.0.1).
Yes official Support ended year ago. So what. I can still run the newest OS with the newest gapps.
I thought the very purpose of an app is to interfere with devices, networks or other parties' apps and services.
just fuck off and keep chomping on zombie jobs rancid cock!
you are an idiot troll
> Android is about as open as iOS. Linux is Open.
sudo pacman -S samsungscrap
error: target not found: samsungscrap
Oh no! Linux isn't open because the package manager doesn't have samsungscrap in the repos because of licensing/patent/trademark issues. Oh wait I can just install the package myself, but by your standard that makes archlinux (and debian et al.) not open in spirit.
Available in the play store, and supports ad-blocking extensions.
Adblock Browser for Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.adblockplus.browser&hl=en
Ghostery Privacy Browser: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ghostery.android.ghostery&hl=en
The fact that they're not in the Google Play Store shouldn't stop you.
On android you only have google (note the "only have", google is an ad company after all).
*cocks head quizzically*
I gave up Android a while back but I'm not yet senile and I've got an Android tablet almost within reach. I don't think Installed one single app from Google on my last phone except for Opera. The tablet has Opera and Firefox. I have, however, installed apps from a lot of other places that were, quite specifically, not Google.
If you want to install something off the 'net that you found on some sketchy site, unless I'm forgetting, it actually prompts you to enable installing stuff from 3rd parties. Err... I kind of only know this because I'm that oddball that doesn't actually go installing a whole bunch of things but I've come across a few apps that looked interesting and weren't in the store.
I reread your post a few times, trying to see if I was missing something, and I'm pretty sure I'm not. Also, I don't really agree with you - as tempting as it is. If a user wants to shoot themselves in the foot, I guess it's just easier to let them do so. Taking away the idiots access may also take away the access from the smart person. I'm really not sure that reducing things to the lowest common denominator is the ideal solution? But, that's another point entirely.
I'm pretty sure, positive really, that I've more than Google as an option on my Android tablet and on my old phone. It's like a box. Tick the box and you're good to go. If you try to install something and that box is not ticked, it'll happily take you to that box in the settings so that you can tick it. Once ticked, it seems to stay ticked.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
See subject: It's safe/code verified @ source too + antivirus checks galore - MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee verified it's source as safe http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... ) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
&
MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per a VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
&
Installer-> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
-
* "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend".
APK
P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:
"The image this title brings to mind is a mighty military commander who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" -> https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THE WORD = hosts!
(Accept NO substitutes)
...apk
Nobody made that claim. AOSP (or CM or...) without Google's apps is the free and open option.
And it makes for a fairly usable smartphone (probably similar in app availability to Windows Phone?).
It's not worth it to me, but some people do that.
If that's not good enough, then you can just as well say there is no truly free or OpenSource OS for PCs because most programs only support Windows.
Note that you are actually probably right anyway though that for real hardware no Android is truly OpenSource: They basically all depend on binary blobs for drivers, especially GPU, video processing and camera. That is an issue, especially since those are usually so poorly written they won't work on the next version of Android and are full of security holes. It is not exactly Google's fault though.
Android is about as open as iOS.
Can I download the source for android modify it and flash it to my device with the full support for doing so provided by the manufacturer (although obviously they'll no longer support the operating system I install). On some devices from some manufacturers: yes, you can. With Apple, on any device -- no. The software cannot be downloaded and modified, and no they do not support allowing you load any customizations you might make at all, period, ever.
To say they are the same even "in spirit" is simply... lying.
You're comparing "freedom" with "openness", and there is a difference.
Yes, you are free to install whatever you'd like from wherever you'd like on Android. I wouldn't go so far as to say "re-flashing the phone with a different Android" is supported. In fact, doing so voids any warranties with the manufacturer and as you mentioned I couldn't bring it into a T-Mobile store for a fix. In many cases there's a bunch of hoops to jump through to even get to the point of installing Cyanogenmod. So sure, there's some freedom there.
Openness, however, is really lacking. Google has a stranglehold on the market with their Google Apps (Play, gmail, movies, music, etc...). I've rooted my phone and attempted to remove those google apps I don't use, such as calendar and gmail, and each time my phone checks for an update those apps are reinstalled. I vaguely remember some being uninstalled remotely somehow on another phone, too. I'd also argue that when most people see the "Install from a non-trusted source?" dialog, they'll cancel out of whatever they were trying to do. Have you seen the source for any of the Google Apps? No? then they aren't 'open' are they?
Heh... Normally, I'd let ya be but I actually decided to scroll back up here to fuck with you.
See, I read some more of your posts and you're drooling on yourself in public. You rant and rave about corporations. You rant and rave about open source. Well, son... Today is the day you either learn to be humble or you decide to go off in a fit of rage.
Allow me to post a link...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Allow me to quote from that link:
The Free Software Foundation was founded in 1985 as a non-profit corporation supporting free software development.
Emphasis added, emphasis mine.
http://www.linuxfoundation.org...
Heh, there's the corporate charter. Let me get you the salient text...
(an Oregon nonprofit mutual benefit corporation)
Emphasis added, emphasis mine.
Shall I find the articles of incorporation for the folks behind BSD?
'Snot that I'm gonna disagree that Android is Open Source in many, many ways. (See prior posts in this very thread.) It's that your spouted spittle flecked gibberish is a bit silly when the very things you sit there and claim to stand for and appeal for are the same things you claim to hate. I'm afraid that trying to have them both makes you look a bit silly. If you want to know what a corporation is, you need but ask and I'll take the time out of my schedule to explain it to you.
If you don't know the meaning of words, you probably ought not use them in front of people until after you've looked them up. Corporations are not bad things. Corporations are just things. Are you using software or a computer to read this? You're a corporate apologist! Your posts, supporting open source? That's you - being a corporate apologist.
When you say, it's not open source "in spirit" that's just you picking one corporation over another. Yeah, that's a good corporate apologist. I hope you enjoy the taste of leather while you're down there kissing that corporate boot that is the FSF! Bend over and take it for the Linux Foundation - you corporate apologist!
Yeah... Kind of sorry but I couldn't just let that slide. It's okay, we've all posted drunk and stupid on Slashdot. You corporate apologist! ;-)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I scrolled back up and figured I'd take a few minutes to get some actual citations. We'll find out from their reactions what kind of person they are. I did so in a nice manner but I pointed out that they're an idiot. I just couldn't leave it alone - I'm like a kid with a dollar in a store that still sells penny candy. Yup. I've the restraint of a five year old. What'd I do? Well, I figure you might miss it as few people refresh and reread threads. I pointed out that FSF and the Linux Foundation are both corporations - as in legal, incorporated, corporate bodies with bylaws, charters, articles of incorporation, paperwork, and everything that makes them a corporate entity. I'll link it, if you want to see it, and post this as an AC so I don't raise my post count.
http://mobile.slashdot.org/com...
Yeah... The corporate apologist was bugging me specifically. So, I had to do it. Yes, I know... I'm about as mature as a five year old. I just have a bigger body, more toys, and they let me drive. It's pretty dumb to be railing about corporations when talking about open source. Being incorporated is what gives them the tools they need to get things done. It's a bit like the folks who rail against copyright while forgetting that copyright is what enables the GPL. Copyright is what stops someone from taking the Linux kernel and locking it down on a released product. Corporations are what enable a group of people to stand with one another as a single legal entity with certain benefits, penalties, responsibilities, and protections. Corporations are not bad, idiots and assholes are bad.
'Tis obviously KGIII
It's a sad fact that you are correct. It applies in fact to almost everything in life. Most people, as long as you let them alone to do pretty much as they please, care little about anything going on under the surface. We see this with things like the "Patriot Act" and the Trans Pacific Partnership. Nobody cares unless they can't see their favorite show.
Well, and just as important to remember ... people have no interest in having their cell phone or internet browser be politicized to this level. It's annoying.
People just don't give a damn. It's hard to save some energy to care about real things instead of getting dragged into some bullshit screed about how Android doesn't embody the Open Source Spirit.
The problem is a lot of open source advocates ratchet it up to extreme levels, which are not unlike the crazy guy on the street corner telling us the end is night ... at a certain point, it just becomes melodramatic and irrelevant noise.
Equating open source zeal with some of the really scary stuff happening in the world is a little loopy, and mostly comes off like someone off their meds.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
What's 2% of 7 billion? I'm not good at maths but I bet it's a bit more than fuck all.
What actual point are you making? Is there any device you can describe where a non-technical user can install software without using he default distro and without being more likely to get malware than what they were seeking? How would that even work?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
On the contrary, a good imagination loosed on the world is a good thing.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
fuck google, the most anti competitive company in the history of man
True, but then it's all part of the same thing. Some are just more extreme. I watch the national debt clock climbing away and wonder if it'll hit 100 trillion in 3 years or only 2. Everyone sees it climbing but they don't worry about it. The world keeps spinning though, it always has.
I wouldn't go so far as to say "re-flashing the phone with a different Android" is supported.
I qualified that as being supported by SOME manufacturers/devices, which it is.
. In fact, doing so voids any warranties with the manufacturer and as you mentioned I couldn't bring it into a T-Mobile store for a fix.
Actually those select manufacturers have committed that reflashing the OS does NOT void the warranty. But yes, naturally you can't take it to T-Mobile to troubleshoot a problem with syncing your email. If you swap out the OS you take ownership of that. But those manufacturers have committed to dealing with buttons that fail, batteries that fail, and other hardware warranty issues. Worst case you may have to flash it back to a stock OS to demonstrate that its not a software issue.
I'd also argue that when most people see the "Install from a non-trusted source?" dialog, they'll cancel out of whatever they were trying to do.
That's the right decision for Grandma and the VP of marketing. If they doesn't know f-droid from myHappyLuckyTotallyNotAScamStorePlusPlus then they shouldn't leave the google play store.
Have you seen the source for any of the Google Apps? No? then they aren't 'open' are they?
I haven't see the source for Portal either, which runs on linux. That doesn't make linux non open. Android is not google apps, and you can use android without them. I ONLY use the google app for maps myself.
You're comparing "freedom" with "openness", and there is a difference.
I don't deny that android as an ecosystem, especially from the perspective of the major corporations behind it is not ABOUT openness per se. Corporations are motivated by marketshare, profitability, revenue, etc... I get that. I get that they aren't ABOUT openness as a concept. Even RedHat isn't really ABOUT openness, its just a means to an end.
Nevertheless Android is still MUCH more open in actual practice. And even in spirit, it is far less hostile to openness than Apple is even if openness isn't the primary consideration driving all decisions.
Hmm... this is interesting given his previous 2012 Slashdot response when asked if he owned a mobile phone:
"RMS: I certainly do not! A cell phone is Stalin's dream: its movements are tracked, and it can be converted (through the universal back door) into a listening device."
Yeah, there are other aspects he dislikes about Android, and he is supporting some open-source hardware projects, but "complicated UI for allowing third-party software" is not his concern lol
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Don't call it "open source". Call it Free Software.
You can't avoid logging on to google's services on android, no matter which program you're using. They know where you live.
I doubt it's illegal to download it, just to install it in violation of terms of service/agreement.
What is the specific clause in the terms for end users?
Then stfu gstoddart! There's nothing you say we give a fuck about when you screech and yowl you mongoloid babboon!
gstoddart you create irrelevant noise each time you speak here and what people don't give a damn about is your moronic mongoloid scribblings nobody can decipher as you attempt to write the english language destroying it. Please, stfu, ok? Thank you.
So why does ad blocker need access to my phone and camera? Is it for developer work or is it malevolence.