Hey! To clarify the maintainer appears to have split their own development. The Play Store is receiving updates and new features that F-Droid is not getting. Can’t say I’m a fan of this

Yes, I used to use it! Good launcher, but not minimalist as outlined in a different comment

Ding ding ding I think this is the answer

Edit: It looks like this is functionally a paid app. You have to pay to get more icons on your home screen, which is pretty ridiculous. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind paying for apps. But it’s not worth $75 in my opinion

Heh, a little too minimalist for me! But thanks for sharing

I tried it out. Seems like a nice one and does have backup & restore! But it’s not minimalist as described above. I didn’t see an option to hide app icons

Tried these ones: Olauncher, Oasis, minimalist phone, Indistract, Minimalist Launcher, Productivity Launcher

I think it’s a relatively defined launcher category at this point. Typically they’re monochrome and text-based. Often have features to limit notifications and track phone usage

Zeelool has some more left field choices if you’re into that. Otherwise I second eyebuydirect

Heh yeah same. Totally

It does. That’s what session replay is. Granted it’s scoped to the website itself, so no browser or desktop.

Websites do the same thing. Example: openreplay.com

Using a browser is still better because users have more agency. But switching to the web variant isn’t a magic bullet on this front.

Worth noting: Android only

Interesting. I think most users would assume they’re talking to other adults and might change their language or behavior if they thought they were conversing with children

Age is anything but arbitrary from a law perspective. With these laws there is no expectation of privacy in regards to age. I’d argue there never was, it was just poorly enforced and got normalized

I feel like we need a less invasive form of age verification

Yep. Probably a billion dollar idea if you can execute it properly. These laws are spurring competition

I think most peoples’ facial data is already for sale and breachable/leakable

Correct, I don’t really want 12-year-olds commenting here either. Do you? Genuine question

Though Lemmy instances are largely public. You don’t need an account to view their contents. So that’s pretty different from Discord

For the record, I do think the laws will apply to Lemmy instances

That’s a false dichotomy. Parents can and should protect children. Social media sites can and should protect children. It’s in the social interest. Parents don’t have control over every device a child has access to. Firewalls at schools and libraries are often lackluster

I have kids too. I’m not singling out Discord here, just pointing out they’re trying to follow the law.

Young kids and social media are inherently a bad mix. Primarily because it promotes antisocial behaviors and they cannot effectively comprehend and consent to the privacy polices and TOS. Hence why adults need to be involved in account creation.

The app will ask users to scan their face through a computer or smartphone webcam; alternatively, they can scan a driver’s license or other form of ID.

comes in response to laws passed in those countries that place guardrails on youth access to online platforms.

Personally this sounds pretty reasonable. I don’t want young children on there. Any expectation of anonymity on Discord, a social network, is not warranted. Ask any number of users who’ve been prosecuted based on evidence turned over by Discord. It’s also US-based

I don’t necessarily believe it’s in good faith. Just pointing out that it could be a simple misunderstanding and added back.

They can quietly drop or add anything internally, or just be inconsistent. They don’t even have to have a public policy. So the words don’t mean much to begin with. Once there are examples of no enforcement is when it becomes a serious issue.

A YouTube spokesperson said that the removal of “gender identity and expression” from the hate speech policy was part of regular copy edits to the website, and that the enforcement of the policy hasn’t changed. Hate speech toward someone over their “sex, gender, or sexual orientation” is still barred, however critics say that “gender” is very different than “gender identity and expression.”

If this is a good faith statement it’s a non-issue IMO

They’re open source, so for technical issues you can open an issue on GitHub