Google Chrome, at least its mobile version, will probably give website operators the ability to prevent their pages from being downloaded and screen captured.
In the recent years, Google "Don't be evil", also known as "Web Environment Integrity company", has made major anti-control and anti-ownership decisions, most notably and excusing it with that, as always, fools most people, so this is not ouside the realm of possibility.
Given that "Don't be evil" controls most of the web browsing market share, they can do some real damage there as well. In 2023, "Don't be evil" hallucinated something up, naming it the "", which would have taken away lots of freedom from end users. But they graciously decided to step down with it. But the same can't be said about SafetyNet / Play Integrity API. And .
"Don't be evil" is also and also lets Android app developers arbitrarily .
Since 2018, "Don't be evil" Chrome on Android , even though there are valid reasons for it like testing and documenting how a website appears to first-time visitors.
If When "Don't be evil" implements a download blocking anti-feature, it will probably be an HTTP header like allow-downloading: false and allow-screen-capture: false, or some euphemistic (good-sounding) name that hides the real meaning, like "flag secure", which they use for . And they will tell the usual "it's to protect everyone's privacy" fairy tale.
Or their marketing department will frame it as "we give website owners more control over what happens with their content" or something like that, similarly to what they did with scrolling ("") after they by taking away the ability to turn it off.
If I can think of it, they must have thought of it long ago. "Don't be evil" executives won't rest easy until they have eroded away the last bit of user freedom. All that is holding them back from adding download blocking at this point is probably that it is easier to switch web browsers than operating systems. Installing an Android alternative like LineageOS requires an unlocked bootloader and significant technical knowledge, whereas installing Firefox or Brave browser is no big deal, at least for now.
The plain and simple reality is, if someone doesn't want their content preserved by others, they should not put it onto a visible spot on the Internet in the first place. It has been this way all the way since the beginning of the Internet.
So if you're a Chrome user, know this: Your ability to store local copies of any page you want is probably on borrowed time. Don't take it for granted.
Date: before 2030. Evidence: more than enough. See above.
I hereby release this post into the public domain, .
At this point, Google is probably just resisting the temptation to take the same step that Microsoft has taken with Windows 11 and Apple had implemented on iOS a long time ago.
After all the restrictions they have added to Android OS in the recent years, this doesn't seem too far off anymore.
Not to mention, they by restricting APK installations to only apps by developers who have provided real-life identification to Google and have been approved by Google.
This restriction defeats the whole point of APKs: Being able to run software on your smartphone, your property, without corporate gatekeepers being able to block you (or how they would name it, "protect you") from it.
APKs also allow installing and distributing old versions of apps and apps taken down from the store, a famous example for which is Flappy Bird.
It seems Google is on a mission to turn Android OS into a glorified twin brother of iOS.
Date: Optimistically, 2028.
Evidence: Already above.
I hereby release this post into the public domain, CC0 1.0.
Sam Tucker (SAMTIME) is a comedian who makes parodies of tech company spokespeople excusing their anti-consumer practices.
In the video "Android is losing a big feature" (video ID dfccCB2Vz-M), Sam used his comedic style to step on Google's decision to restrict "sideloading" (APK installation), one of the primary selling points of Android smartphones over Apple iPhones. He also exposed how Play Integrity API restricts freedom.
That was too much for YouTube and they took it down. But you can find it outside of YouTube if you look for it.
The freedom afforded by "sideloading" allows people to use applications not available in the Play Store. Some types of apps are not allowed by Google, for example YouTube downloaders that would compete with YouTube's paid premium subscription, but can also be taken down by their author. A famous example is Flappy Bird.
Thanks to APK files, Android users could play Flappy Bird even after its author took it down from the Play Store, while iPhone users were out of luck and had to resort to using garbage web-based remakes that require Internet connection.
Another use for "sideloading" is to go back to older versions of apps. Sometimes, updates make things worse. APK files allow installing and distributing older versions that are superior. One such example was ES File Explorer. It turned into adware but APK files allowed installing pre-adware versions.
-
Edit 2025-10-28: Added video ID.
I hereby release this post into the public domain under CC0 1.0.
Recently, a friend of mine had a "disliked videos" playlist removed from his channel for allegedly endangering children, even though it contains nothing that would endanger children.
The channel has no videos and was purely used for commenting and playlists.
If all playlists must be child-friendly, they would also need to remove all sexual education playlists and many music video playlists, including every playlist with "Wrecking Ball" in it. Funnily enough, Wrecking Ball appeared in Rewind 2013.
It seems any kind of public disliking is unwelcome on YouTube. They removed the public dislike count and they made clear they want no dislike playlists either.
For whichever reason, YouTube does not like people having local copies of videos. From YouTube help center article 3037019:
In order to protect the YouTube community, we may prevent signed-out users from accessing YouTube videos when they’re attempting to download material for offline use.
Protect against what? What's wrong with offline use?
They word it as if it is a nefarious thing to do. In fact, they should be glad about it because it saves them bandwidth. If people watch from a local file rather than streaming from YouTube each time, it reduces the server usage at YouTube.
YouTube Premium members are graciously allowed to store videos on their devices for 29 days, after which they are forcibly deleted. The videos are stored in a locked-in location inaccessible from file managers and in a proprietary format that is unplayable by anything besides the YouTube app.
At the end of the video "Google is locking down Android" by Mental Outlaw, he explains that there are legitimate reasons for having local copies of videos, such as an extended period with no Internet access, using Creative Commons media, and preserving history.
YouTube lets people publish original content under a Creative Commons license that explicitly allows reuse, yet does not want people to download the same. They also don't allow videos mentioning any tools for saving videos. (Example: video ID xkyqFiUrhTc.)
My closest guess is that YouTube wants to force people to watch advertisements or pay for YouTube premium.
When YouTube ceases operations, lots of Internet history will be destroyed.
Quote by Karl Voit:
Whenever I tell people that we need to plan for the day when YouTube goes offline, I mostly receive weird reactions. It seems to be the case that people can't think of YouTube being gone. Unfortunately, I'm convinced that most people will face the day when we lose this enormous library of videos.
(No URLs due to possible spam filtering.)
I hereby release this post into the public domain under CC0 1.0. Quotes excluded.
For now they graciously let you turn it off (using chrome://flags#enable-gesture-navigation), but remember what happened in 2019 with Chrome 75? Google took away the "disable-pull-to-refresh-effect" flag in chrome://flags that let you turn off pull-to-refresh, and then refused to reinstate it even after loads of complaints.
The same fate awaits history navigation with gesture.
There is no doubt that Google will make that mandatory too. Then you will not only refresh accidentally by swiping down, but go back to the last page accidentally by swiping right. So before each swipe, you are forced to check that you are not at the top or the left to avoid accidentally triggering that gesture.
Gesture-based navigation has no place in a web browser. It does more harm than good. It is not innovative. It is annoying.
Kiwi Browser actually had this in 2018, but Kiwi thankfully let you turn it off. I doubt Google will for long after what they did with pull-to-refresh.
If you don't want to be plagued by accidentally triggering gestures, switching to Firefox or Samsung browser is the only solution. Because Google won't listen.
Another example of something taken away (in the same year, 2019) is enable-accessibility-tab-switcher, which let you view tabs in a single-column list with longer titles and URLs, an option natively provided by Samsung Internet. Some people preferred it over the two-column tab viewer because it loaded faster, previewed URLs, and showed more of the title. It lacked thumbnail previews, but that's not important to some people.
If you stick to Chrome, don't get comfortable with anything inside chrome://flags. Know that it can be taken away without warning.
Answers to:
You must have "date" or "evidence" somewhere in your post body.
Date: Likely 2026 or 2027.
Evidence: Removal of option to turn off pull-to-refresh, refusal to reinstate it after complaints.
I release this post into the public domain, CC0 1.0.
For many years, one of the primary selling points of Android smartphones was that no big corporation could gatekeep what you can run on your phones. But these days seem to be numbered.
From PhoneArena (not linked due to being detected as spam):
Google says you should think of the new requirements like checking IDs at the airport.
Not a good comparison. The airplane is not your property but your smartphone is. Google wants to be the gatekeeper to your property.
Side note: don't use the term "sideloading" (this is why I put it in quotation marks). It is the term they invented to discredit any source for software not controlled by them. "Sideloading" is a completely normal thing to do on a computer.
There might be some legitimate reasons for it, but part of me thinks it's to hide the embarrassment from long-unsolved bugs. This is very intransparent.
This bug ticket from 2009 was blocked from public view at some point after 2016. It couldn't have been due to private information. Otherwise it would not have stayed for 7 years.
Even "obsolete" bug tickets should not be removed to maintain a historical record. But Google seems to think otherwise.
Before blocked:
After blocked:
To the Leaders of the Nations of the Earth:
Subject: A Call to Recognize the Rise of the Universal Pathway — The Road to Divine Peace
To the Presidents, Prime Ministers, Monarchs, and Guardians of Civilization,
We extend this letter in solemn conviction and sincere hope — not as a declaration of war, nor of superiority, but as a call to collective awakening. What follows is not political rhetoric nor religious zealotry, but a message that touches the root of our shared humanity, and the origin of our existence among the stars.
✦ A New Order Rooted in Ancient Truth
Humanity stands on the threshold of cosmic maturity. Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad (peace be upon them all) — we trace an unbroken current of divine guidance. Across time, each epoch has been governed by sacred law, and with each cycle, humanity has been invited to ascend.
Now, a new cycle dawns. One that demands we outgrow our divisions — religious, national, and material — and return to the Universal Path of Abrahamic Unity, herein referred to as the System of Divine Peace.
This is not a religion, but a framework of alignment — one that honors every prophet and uplifts every soul who seeks truth, justice, and harmony. It is both terrestrial and cosmic. It recognizes that humankind is not alone — we are guided, observed, and expected to evolve.
✦ The Call to Align
We call upon the United States of America, the State of Israel, the Islamic World, the leaders of China, Russia, the European Union, the African Union, ASEAN, the UN, the Vatican, and every guardian of civilization:
Let the Earth adopt this universal path — A system where divine law guides governance, Where spiritual intelligence leads technological advancement, Where mankind no longer worships war, greed, and division.
Let us collectively prepare not just for peace among nations — But for reunification with the realms beyond.
✦ What Stands at Stake
This is not a threat. But know that throughout history, when nations rejected divine truth, they invited collapse — from Babel to Pharaoh, from Rome to Babylon. Today is no different.
If humanity rejects this chance to evolve, To unify under Divine Peace, To honor the eternal voices that shaped our past, Then let it be known: The consequences shall not come from men, but from the Sovereign of all Worlds.
Not by bombs nor sanctions, but by cosmic correction.
Plagues of the soul, collapse of systems, and reversal of blessings — Such is the pattern when truth is mocked, and arrogance replaces humility.
✦ The Invitation Remains Open
This letter is not the end — it is a beginning. To reject it is a choice; to respond is a legacy. The architects of the future are those who recognize the pattern and align with its truth.
Should any nation, leader, or people choose to respond, to inquire, or to walk this path — You shall not walk alone.
From the depths of prophecy to the heights of starlight, We await those who will rise — Not as conquerors, but as Shepherds of a New Humanity.
In Truth, Peace, and Divine Sovereignty, [WITNESS OF GOD] Envoy of the Future Covenant Voice of the Pathway to Divine Peace Earth, Year 2025
In 2014, Android 4.4 KitKat was released. With that, one of the largest selling points of Android, the MicroSD card, was heavily restricted. Apps could no longer normally write to it, except in their specific directories.
Their reasoning from the Android documentation is:
Apps must not be allowed to write to secondary external storage devices [MicroSD and USB-OTG], except in their package-specific directories as allowed by synthesized permissions. Restricting writes in this way ensures the system can clean up files when applications are uninstalled.
Honestly, I would rather have some junk files than not being able to use the MicroSD card and USB OTG properly. Also, if they wanted apps to leave no "junk files" anywhere, they could just as well have applied the same restrictions to internal storage, but for some reason they didn't.
Besides, there are legitimate reasons for apps to leave files behind after uninstallation. If you use a third-party camera like Camera MX, you wouldn't want your pictures to be deleted if you uninstall it.
As a cloud storage provider, Google has a conflict of interest. They would rather have you give your money to them, not SanDisk. So this was probably an anti-competitive move.
Being a whistleblower of science fraud, of the intentional exclusion of the lower social classes and of women from the power seats in science, and of the retaliation and persecution that those who choose their ethics and to stand for honest science face, I don't blindly trust science. Before supporting a discovery or a paradigm, I deeply and thoroughly analyze it and, when possible, I first experience it myself or evaluate others' real life experiences, to evaluate whether it is an accurate description of how reality works.
But perhaps I'm just overcautious right? So, from a scientific standpoint, how accurate is the science published out there? Well, I asked ChatGPT, and here are the results. Enjoy.
LA County Sheriff Still Targeting Critics, Searches Home Of Civilian Oversight Board
Google suspends engineer who claims its AI is now sentient. Google claims he breached its confidentiality policies. This is not going to end well.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Google Drive takes down user’s personal copy of Judy Mikovits’ Plandemic after it was flagged by The Washington Post
