Is it possible to allow sideloading and keep users safe?

> Are you allowed to run whatever computer program you want on the hardware you own?

Yes. It is a basic human right.

> This is a question where freedom, practicality, and reality all collide into a mess.

No; it isn't. The answer is clear and not messy. If you are not allowed to run programs of your choice, then it is not your hardware. Practicality and "reality" (whatever that means) are irrelevant issues here.

Maybe you prefer to use hardware that is not yours, but that is a different question.

That’s a great ideal, but Android is used both by sophisticated users who want a phone they can tinker with and the tech-illiterate grandparents of the world, who will never have a legitimate reason to install an app outside the Play Store, and who would never attempt to do that unless they were being guided by a scammer.

Then why not lock down their devices. Why aren't people using the parental controls on their parents phones to lock it down and own in on their behalf? I don't understand this idea that because there are some people vulnerable to scams that we all have to give up control to Apple and Google. The option to move the trust and ownership to another party is useful, but it doesn't have to be just those two parties as options.

Not everyone has children. Not everyone has children who they remain in contact with. Not everyone has children who are tech-adept enough to do that. Not everyone has children who are less vulnerable than themselves.

Well maybe let's start small and cover the people that do first, just to see how that goes. Instead we're starting with all people on the planet, and it will be declared a success because the metrics will say it was, there's no rolling this back.

And it doesn't have to be children of parents, that's just the common example that's brought out every time this comes up.

We literally did start with that… that’s the current situation, everyone has parental toggles and yet millions of people get scammed for billions of dollars a year. You’re acting like we (and these massive corporations) haven’t been trying for decades at this point. And you’re saying we shouldn’t be trying more stuff, we should just stop and give up and let innocent people get scammed because you want to be able to run whatever on your phone.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I have never seen Apple or Google suggest that someone use the parental control tools on a vulnerable adult person's phone to prevent them from hurting themselves. They have never run such a campaign for awareness or changed those tools to make them more palatable to controlling adult's phones (these tools are always sold as things to enable on a child's device). So no, I don't think we've started with that. We've started by adding some toggles and scary warning, and I agree that hasn't worked. I never suggested we stop trying, I suggested we allow the trusted owner/admin of the device to be more easily assigned to someone that person trusts, not just forcing Google into that role without consent.

You do not want to live in a world where that's normalized. There are legal processes for determining when somebody's "vulnerable" enough to need a guardian. Those process are heavy and strict for a damned good reason. And sometimes still not strict enough.