This raises the question: Why publish web pages that discuss topics such as "sideloading". Who would be interested in that information

Who (besides you, dear HN reader) reads googleblog.com, androidauthority.com and other sites that discuss these topics

Is it only a small fraction of a percentage of Android users

When Google makes the obviously bogus claim that Google Play policies, e.g., "sideloaoding" restrictions, are intended to "protect users", who is it addressing. Who is the audience. Is it the "average" Android users that Google claims to be protecting. Is it the Android users who prefer F-Droid that do not need Google's "help" to avoid scams

What if Google Play policies protect Google from competition (cf. protecting users from scams) and this could have an effect on the stock price or on the profits of "app developers" or "ad tech" companies. Who would be interested in that information. Who would accept bogus claims about "protecting users" without question

Yeah. I had to remove malware from family phones because they installed the wrong "QR Code Scanner" out of the trillions of copies on the play store, which contained malware that somehow replaced the launcher on a Samsung phone and then showed ads all over the place. The Play store is fucking malware, Google services are malware, and the family member now uses a Pixel 9a with GrapheneOS which makes normie phone usage riskless and clean again. Fuck Google for Gaslighting us all with this Sideload change.

> Not even a small fraction of a percentage of scams come from installing software normally, but only from Google Play store.

This change is not about stopping malware/scams. Malware/scams is just the gaslighting excuse for the change.

The actual reason for the change is to try to protect playstore profits. With the lawsuit that forced them to allow alternate "stores" they saw the money stream shrinking, and this is their attempt at propping up the money flow for as long as possible.