Here is what GrapheneOS thinks about it, and I have to say I agree.
this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2026
86 points (96.7% liked)
Privacy
4176 readers
103 users here now
Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Do I get this right? A hand full of OS devs who also sell phones form a group that attests combinations of phones and certified copies of their OSs as secure?
Sounds like self-verifying the own ecosystem of devices and OSs in a cartel-like consortium. But wasn’t that to be circumvented? Shouldn’t the certifying body be independent of the certified products?
I am having questions.
I hope this picks up. Apps dependent on google services for no reason are such a pain.
It seems to be the same manner of a closed ecosystem, just EU branded
"New Consortium wants to be the arbiter of which phone OSs are allowed to access basic features. Spoiler: it's theirs."
Opensource. I don't understand everything it does but that has to count for something.
What would be a better solution?
banning the thing. It's not bad because it's google, it's bad because it takes away our freedom of choosing whichever devices and operating systems we want
Chesterton's Fence...
i don't understand the reference. We don't want the fence built. The fence is not already there and we all have no idea of the reason it was put up. On the contrary, we don't want it up because we know the reason. This will not help security. This will help no one
hopeful