[bigstrat2003]

> Splitting hairs about the origin of the term "sideload" does not change the fact that those who promote the term tend to do so in order to make it feel deviant and hacker-ish.

That is not a fact, that is your opinion. Lots of people say "sideload" without trying to convey such negative meanings. For better or for worse, the term has entered the common lexicon and I very rarely see it used with negative connotations attached to it.

[hypeatei]

> Lots of people say "sideload" without trying to convey such negative meanings

Sure, but they effectively do even if they're not trying to. It comes off like you're up to no good or doing something dangerous. Like GP said: deviant.

[gruez]

>Sure, but they effectively do even if they're not trying to.

What specific acts are referring to? Is it just their recent plans to restrict sideloading? This feels circular. "Google is evil because they're trying to restrict sideloading. They're also extra evil because trying to demonize sideloading. How? By restricting sideloading!"

>It comes off like you're up to no good or doing something dangerous. Like GP said: deviant.

Yes, but only insofar as if you're not taking the primary route, you're taking the "side" route. Or you're "deviating" from the intended route. None of that actually implies you're a "deviant" for doing so, any more than a driver taking side streets to shave 30s is a "deviant".

[hypeatei]

I think the recent push to restrict "sideloading" made people realize that the term itself helps Google frame it to normies as a fringe, non-standard thing that needs controls around it. When in reality you're just installing software on a device.

[gruez]

>I think the recent push to restrict "sideloading" made people realize that the term itself helps Google frame it to normies as a fringe, non-standard thing that needs controls around it.

No, it made all the pro-sideloading people (for lack of a better term) find any reason to hate google even more, including flimsy arguments about how "sidleoad" is some sort of sinister psyop. I still haven't seen any evidence to suggest "sideload" has any negative connotations to the average "normie", beyond its meaning of "install from third party source"[1]. All I've seen are endless speculation that it's a google psyop in techie/hacker[2] circles, like this post.

[1] see also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45738997

[2] as in "hacker" news

[rpdillon]

There's been a concerted effort by smartphone manufacturers to demonize side loading explicitly for some time now. This is actually about code signing rather than sideloading, so it's kind of funny that we have this sub thread that's explicitly about the term sideloading, but regardless, that term has been demonized by Apple.

https://www.apple.com/tr/privacy/docs/Building_a_Trusted_Eco...

[hooverd]

instead of sideload you could use the more correct term "install software on a device you own without permission from Google"

[phendrenad2]

> those who PROMOTE the term

> Lots of people SAY "sideload"

It's almost like you didn't read the post

[alanbernstein]

I think the verb "promote" was chosen over "say" here very deliberately