Application Gatekeeping: An Ever-Expanding Pathway to Internet Censorship | Electronic Frontier Foundation

Application Gatekeeping: An Ever-Expanding Pathway to Internet Censorship | Electronic Frontier Foundation
About
Contact
Press
People
Opportunities
EFF's 35th Anniversary
Issues
Free Speech
Creativity and Innovation
Transparency
International
Security
Our Work
Deeplinks Blog
Press Releases
Events
Legal Cases
Whitepapers
Podcast
Annual Reports
Take Action
Action Center
Electronic Frontier Alliance
Volunteer
Tools
Privacy Badger
Surveillance Self-Defense
Certbot
Atlas of Surveillance
Cover Your Tracks
Street Level Surveillance
apkeep
Donate
Donate to EFF
Giving Societies
Shop
Sponsorships
Other Ways to Give
Membership FAQ
Donate
Donate to EFF
Shop
Other Ways to Give
Email updates on news, actions,
and events in your area.
Join EFF Lists
Copyright (CC BY)
Trademark
Thanks
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Donate
If you use technology, this fight is yours.
Donate today
Application Gatekeeping: An Ever-Expanding Pathway to Internet Censorship
DEEPLINKS BLOG
By
Corynne McSherry
November 3, 2025
Application Gatekeeping: An Ever-Expanding Pathway to Internet Censorship
Share It
Share on Mastodon
Share on Bluesky
Share on Facebook
Copy link
It’s not news that Apple and Google use their app stores to shape what apps you can and cannot have on many of your devices. What is new is more governments—including the U.S. government—using legal and extralegal tools to lean on these gatekeepers in order to assert that same control. And rather than resisting, the gatekeepers are making it easier than ever.
Apple’s decision
to take down the ICEBlock app
at least partially in response to threats from the U.S. government—with Google rapidly
and voluntarily
following suit—was bad enough. But it pales in comparison with Google’s
new program,
set to launch worldwide next year, requiring developers to register with the company in order to have their apps installable on Android certified devices—including paying a fee and providing personal information backed by government-issued identification. Google claims the new program of “is an extra layer of security that deters bad actors and makes it harder for them to spread harm,” but the registration requirements are barely tied to app effectiveness or security. Why, one wonders, does Google need to see your driver’s license to evaluate whether your app is safe?  Why, one also wonders, does Google want to create a database of virtually every Android app developer in the world?
Those communities are likely to drop out of developing for Android altogether, depriving all Android users of valuable tools.
F-Droid, a free and open-source repository for Android apps, has been sounding the alarm. As they’ve explained
in an open letter
Google’s central registration system will be devastating for the Android developer community. Many mobile apps are created, improved, and distributed by volunteers, researchers, and/or small teams with limited financial resources.
Others are created by developers who do not use the name attached to any government-issued identification.
Others may have good reason to fear handing over their personal information to Google, or any other third party. Those communities are likely to drop out of developing for Android altogether, depriving all Android users of valuable tools.
Google’s promise that it’s “working on” a program for “students and hobbyists” that may have different requirements falls far short of what is necessary to alleviate these concerns.
It’s more important than ever to support technologies which decentralize and democratize our shared digital commons. A centralized global registration system for Android will inevitably chill this work.
The point here is not that all the apps are necessarily perfect or even safe. The point is that when you set up a gate, you invite authorities to use it to block things they don’t like. And when you build a database, you invite governments (and private parties) to try to get access to that database. If you build it, they will come.
Imagine you have developed a virtual private network (VPN) and corresponding Android mobile app that helps dissidents, journalists, and ordinary humans avoid corporate and government surveillance. In
some countries,
distributing that app could invite legal threats and even prosecution. Developers in those areas should not have to trust that Google would not hand over their personal information in response to a government demand just because they want their app to be installable by all Android users. By the same token, technologists that work on Android apps for reporting ICE misdeeds should not have to worry that Google will hand over their personal information to, say, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
It’s easy to see how a new registration requirement for developers could give Google a new lever for maintaining its app store monopoly
Our tech infrastructure’s substantial dependence on just
a few platforms
is already creating new opportunities for those platforms to be weaponized to serve all kinds of disturbing purposes, from
policing
to
censorship
. In this context, it’s more important than ever to support technologies which
decentralize and democratize
our shared digital commons. A centralized global registration system for Android will inevitably chill this work.
Not coincidentally, the registration system Google announced would also help cement Google’s outsized competitive power, giving the company an additional window—if it needed one, given the company’s already massive surveillance capabilities—into what apps are being developed, by whom, and how they are being distributed. It’s more than ironic that Google’s announcement came at the same time the company is fighting a court order (in the Epic Games v. Google lawsuit) that will require it to stop punishing developers who distribute their apps through app stores that compete with Google’s own. It’s easy to see how a new registration requirement for developers, potentially enforced by technical measures on billions of Android certified mobile devices, could give Google a new lever for maintaining its app store monopoly.
EFF has signed on to F-Droid’s open letter. If you care about
taking back control of tech
, you should too.
Related Issues
Competition
Share It
Share on Mastodon
Share on Bluesky
Share on Facebook
Copy link
Related Updates
New York's proposed 2026-2027 budget currently includes provisions that will require all 3D printers sold in the state to run print-blocking censorware—software that surveils every print for forbidden designs. This policy would also create felony charges for possessing or sharing certain design files. The vote on the state budget could...
California’s bill, AB 2047, will not only mandate censorware on all 3D printers; it will also criminalize the use of open-source alternatives. Repeating the mistakes of DRM won’t make anyone safer, but it will hurt innovation in the state and risks a slew of new consumer harms ranging from surveillance...
The Ninth Circuit should follow Van Buren’s lead and interpret the CFAA narrowly, as Congress intended.
Legislators across the U.S. are proposing laws to force “print blockers” on 3D printers sold in their states. This mandated censorware is doomed to fail for its intended purpose, but will still manage to hurt the professional and hobbyist communities relying on these tools.
When legislators give companies an excuse to write untouchable code, it’s a disaster for everyone. This time, 3D printers are being targeted. Even if you’ve never used one, you’ve benefited from the open commons these devices have created. We need to roundly reject these onerous restraints on creation.
The state of streaming is... bad. It’s very bad. The first step in wanting to watch anything is a web search: “Where can I stream X?” Then you have to scroll past an AI summary with no answers, and then scroll past the sponsored links. After that, you find out...
Several music companies sued Cox Communications, arguing that the ISP should be held liable for copyright infringement committed by some of its subscribers. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed, adopting a “material contribution” standard for contributory copyright liability (a rule for when service providers can be held...
Knowledge production doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Every great scientific breakthrough is built on prior work, and an ongoing exchange with peers in the field. That’s why we need to address the threat of major publishers and platforms having an improper influence on how scientific knowledge is accessed—or outright suppressed...
At EFF, we
believe
that
tech rights are worker’s rights
. Since the pandemic, workers of all kinds have been subjected to increasingly invasive forms of
bossware
. These are the “algorithmic management” tools that surveil workers on and off the job, often running on devices that (nominally) belong...
If you live in Mississippi, you may have noticed that you are no longer able to log into your Bluesky or Dreamwidth accounts from within the state. That’s because, in a chilling early warning sign for the U.S., both social platforms decided to block all users in Mississippi from their...
Share on Mastodon
Share on Bluesky
Share on Facebook
Related Issues
Competition
Follow EFF:
mastodon
Blue Sky
flicker
threads
Check out our 4-star rating on
Charity Navigator
Contact
General
Legal
Security
Membership
Press
About
Calendar
Volunteer
Victories
History
Internships
Jobs
Staff
Diversity & Inclusion
Issues
Free Speech
Creativity & Innovation
Transparency
International
Security
Updates
Blog
Press Releases
Events
Legal Cases
Whitepapers
EFFector Newsletter
Press
Press Contact
Donate
Join or Renew Membership Online
One-Time Donation Online
Giving Societies
Corporate Giving and Sponsorship
Shop
Other Ways to Give
Copyright (CC BY)
Trademark
Thanks
JavaScript license information