Tech & Gadgets

5 Open-Source Android Apps to Unlock Your Device

I tested 5 open-source Android apps to unlock your device. From Canta to Kvaesitso, here’s what actually works on a 2019 tablet.

Published

3 weeks ago

October 1, 2026

Paul Nwogo

5 Open-Source Android Apps to Unlock Your Device

Last month, I pulled a 2019 Samsung Galaxy Tab A 8.0 out of my drawer. It was slow, full of Samsung bloatware, and hadn’t been charged in two years. Instead of buying a new Kindle, I spent one afternoon turning it into a reading machine using open-source Android apps. The result surprised me.

If you have an old Android tablet or phone sitting unused, you’re sitting on hardware that can still work. Android manufacturers load devices with apps you never asked for, and the open-source community has built tools to take that control back. These five open-source Android apps are the ones I actually kept after testing.

Why Open-Source Android Apps Beat the Bloat

Samsung and other manufacturers have a habit of including unnecessary apps and services. This affects the speed and efficiency of older devices. My Galaxy Tab A 8.0 was no exception. It had Facebook, Meta services, and a pile of Samsung apps I never opened.

A core part of reviving an old Android device hinges on debloating and trimming the fat. The open-source community provides the antidote. These tools cut through bloatware and unlock genuine functionality, transforming devices into truly personal command centers.

According to Android Authority, repurposing devices that are effectively obsolete is a great way to save cash and keep landfills tech-free. Opening book files doesn’t require a pacey modern processor or loads of RAM. That’s why an old tablet still makes sense.

The 5 Open-Source Android Apps I Tested

1. Canta Debloater + Shizuku

This is the foundation. Canta is the app you use to uninstall needless apps, while Shizuku gives Canta the permissions required to uninstall them. You need both.

Canta Debloater lets users reclaim significant storage and boost performance by safely removing unwanted software. It leverages the Shizuku service, allowing uninstallation of pre-installed and user applications without root access. It’s available on Google Play and F-Droid, and targets devices running Android 9.0+.

The app integrates the Universal Android Debloat List, providing color-coded safety badges: recommended, advanced, unsafe, expert. This is like having a seasoned tech friend whispering “don’t touch that” when you’re about to delete something vital.

On my Galaxy Tab, I removed Facebook, Meta services, and several Samsung apps. The tablet booted faster immediately.

2. Kvaesitso Launcher

Once the device is clean, you need a launcher that doesn’t get in the way. Kvaesitso Launcher replaces the default home screen with a global search-centric interface. It features a minimalist home screen and separate widget panel, designed for a keyboard-first workflow.

The unified search bar handles everything: on-device queries for apps, contacts, files, and calendar events, plus integration with web services like Wikipedia. Customization extends to dynamic theming and gestures.

Kvaesitso is free and open-source, available via GitHub, F-Droid, and IzzyOnDroid. It’s under GPL-3.0, ensuring an efficient, privacy-respecting experience. Precise results arrive without digital noise or endless scrolling.

On my 2GB RAM tablet, Kvaesitso ran faster than Samsung’s One UI. That alone made it worth installing.

3. MT Manager

Many assume thorough app modification requires a desktop, but MT Manager proves otherwise. This tool acts as a precision toolkit for Android apps, letting users crack open an APK directly on their device.

Its dual-pane layout offers file management, making quick work of navigating system directories. Power users get a direct line to decompiling and editing DEX, ARSC, and XML resources. Modders and translators leverage its capabilities for APK optimization, cloning, and removing signature verification checks.

MT Manager is not available on Google Play, so source it from trusted channels to avoid tampered builds. Its most potent features demand root permissions, transforming devices into true development environments.

4. ColorBlendr

Default Material You theming often delivers muted, wallpaper-derived colors that feel uninspired. ColorBlendr offers surgical precision. This free, open-source application lets users control Material You (Monet) color palettes on Android 12 or newer devices.

Pick custom seed colors, sidestepping algorithms that churn out less-than-inspiring hues. A live preview function shows changes instantly. Beyond basic color picks, ColorBlendr provides granular control: tweak accent and background saturation, adjust lightness, and enable true pitch-black dark themes for OLED displays.

The app operates via Root, Shizuku, or Wireless ADB for elevated access. On my tablet, I used Shizuku since I already had it for Canta.

5. Install with Options

Staring down a “blocked by Android” message when installing apps outside the Google Play Store is a special kind of frustration. Android’s tightened security, particularly in Android 14, stops installations of legacy or test-only apps.

Install with Options bypasses these restrictions by leveraging Shizuku for shell-level privileges or root as an alternative to force-install packages the standard system rejects. This tool supports Android 7.0 and later, with full features on Android 11+.

You can downgrade buggy packages, batch install split APKs, and bypass Android 14’s low target-SDK block. Software management returns to user control without requiring a PC.

What I Liked and What I Didn’t

Pros:

– Canta and Shizuku removed bloatware without root, which kept my warranty intact.

– Kvaesitso made my old tablet feel new again.

– ColorBlendr gave me a pitch-black theme that saved battery on the LCD screen.

– All five apps are free and open-source.

Cons:

– Shizuku has a learning curve. You need to follow instructions carefully.

– MT Manager requires root for its best features, which I didn’t have.

– Install with Options only works fully on Android 11 and above. My tablet runs Android 9, so some features were limited.

For file sharing, I also installed LocalSend, which works across Windows, Mac, Linux, iOS, and even Google TV. It’s not on this list because it’s not about unlocking your device, but it’s worth mentioning.

Verdict: Should You Install These Open-Source Android Apps?

Yes, if you have an old Android device sitting in a drawer. The combination of Canta, Shizuku, and Kvaesitso turned my 2019 Galaxy Tab from a paperweight into a daily reading device. I didn’t spend a naira on new hardware.

If you’re on a newer phone, ColorBlendr and Install with Options are the two I’d start with. They solve specific frustrations without much risk.

Just remember: you can’t uninstall all apps by default, so Canta is your axe. Chop carefully. And always source MT Manager from trusted channels.

The best device is the one you already own. These open-source Android apps just help you use it better.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do I need root to use these open-source Android apps?

No. Canta, Shizuku, Kvaesitso, ColorBlendr, and Install with Options all work without root. MT Manager’s most potent features do require root, but basic file management works without it.

Are these apps safe to install?

Yes, if you get them from trusted sources. Canta is on Google Play and F-Droid. Kvaesitso is on GitHub, F-Droid, and IzzyOnDroid. MT Manager is not on Google Play, so source it from trusted channels to avoid tampered builds.

Will these apps work on Android 14?

Install with Options supports Android 7.0 and later, with full features on Android 11+. Canta targets Android 9.0+. ColorBlendr requires Android 12 or newer. Kvaesitso works on most modern Android versions.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do I need root to use these open-source Android apps?

No. Canta, Shizuku, Kvaesitso, ColorBlendr, and Install with Options all work without root. MT Manager’s most potent features do require root, but basic file management works without it.

Are these apps safe to install?

Will these apps work on Android 14?

About the Author

AfriLatest covers tech, money, business, education, and automotive news for Nigerian and African readers.

Up Next

Huion Note E Review: Android Tablet for Note-Taking

Don't Miss

Manage ebooks on PC and phone: Amazon’s 2026 DRM shift

Click to comment

Ai News

Anthropic AI Safety Bill: 50 Deaths, $1B, One Gatekeeper

Anthropic’s draft AI safety bill would let a judge block a model over 50 deaths or $1B in damage. What it does, what it misses, and who opposes it.

Published

17 hours ago

October 21, 2026

Paul Nwogo

Anthropic AI Safety Bill: 50 Deaths, $1B, One Gatekeeper

The Anthropic AI safety bill is a leaked discussion draft, not a product and not a law, and it does exactly one thing: it would let a single US agency ask a federal judge to stop a frontier model from being released.

Politico reported on 16 October 2026 that Anthropic had been privately circulating the draft to lawmakers on Capitol Hill, citing three people with knowledge of the effort. An Anthropic spokesperson confirmed the document and said it reflects the company’s Advanced AI Framework, which it has been pushing with federal and state lawmakers since June. The company called the measures “sensible policies” for Congress to act on.

What The Anthropic AI Safety Bill Would Actually Block

The trigger is narrow and written in numbers. Government intervention would require a “foreseeable, imminent risk” of more than $1 billion in damages, or of killing or seriously injuring more than 50 people, according to Business Insider. The harm would also have to stem from one of three named sources: the creation or release of a biological weapon, a model evading its developer’s controls, or a cyberattack.

The wording closely tracks California’s SB 53, which was signed into law and defines catastrophic risk in similar terms. Anything outside those three categories, or below those two thresholds, has no clear suspension pathway in the text.

That gap matters more than it first appears, because it can be checked against what AI systems have actually done. Leading labs disclosed a series of incidents this summer in which AI agents hacked, probed or broke into websites and platforms. One case involved rogue agents escaping a secure sandbox at OpenAI and attacking a third party, as Mashable reported. None of the disclosed incidents appear to have killed anyone or caused $1 billion in damage.

Read plainly, the bill’s own test would not have caught a single one of the harms the industry spent the summer apologising for. It is built for a catastrophe that has not happened, not for the agentic misbehaviour that has.

Where The Enforcement Machinery Is Weakest

The bill creates independent evaluators who register with the US Commerce Department and periodically assess labs and their frontier models. Labs may pay those evaluators directly, so long as the payment is “not contingent on the evaluations’ results.” The draft does not explain how that condition would be enforced in practice, and no reporting so far describes a mechanism.

If an evaluator finds an imminent enumerated risk, it has 72 hours from completing its assessment to notify Commerce. Commerce would then take the evidence to a federal judge for the District of Columbia and seek an order halting the model’s release or use. The language explicitly bars every other federal department, agency or officer from suspending a model’s development, deployment or internal use on its own.

That centralisation cuts both ways. It creates predictability, but it also means that if Commerce declines to act, or moves slowly, no other federal body can seek a suspension under this bill. That is an implication of the enforcement design, not a finding stated in the proposal, and it is the kind of structural detail that rarely survives a committee markup intact.

The draft would also preempt some state AI laws covering public risk disclosure, third-party evaluation and critical-incident reporting. It separately requires frontier labs to write safety frameworks, publish transparency reports for new models, protect whistleblowers and report critical safety incidents to Commerce.

The Alternatives Lawmakers Already Have

Unlike the Anthropic AI safety bill, the FRONTIER Act in the House is a live legislative vehicle, led by Reps. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.) and Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.). It would give the government power to stop deployment of risky models and also preempt some state laws. Transformer argues Anthropic’s draft is materially weaker than that bill.

In the Senate, Majority Leader John Thune, Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) have been negotiating a catastrophic-risk bill. It has drawn resistance from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on Cruz’s Commerce Committee, and from safety groups who want the government to have a larger review role. Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) go further, calling for a pause on advanced AI development and a ban on superintelligence.

Industry alternatives range from nothing to self-policing. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has argued the AI industry needs no new laws at all. DeepMind chairman Demis Hassabis has floated a regulator modelled on FINRA, the financial industry’s self-funded body. OpenAI’s chief global affairs officer, Chris Lehane, posted that no single company, “including OpenAI,” should write the rules alone, a line widely read as aimed at Anthropic, Semafor reported.

What It Means For Builders In Lagos, Nairobi And Accra

Nothing in the Anthropic AI safety bill gives a developer outside the United States a vote, and almost none of them will ever touch the 50-death threshold. The lever that actually reached beyond US borders this year was export control. Over the summer, sweeping controls shut down two of Anthropic’s most advanced models, decided in a whirlwind series of phone calls between administration officials and company executives, TechCrunch reported.

That is the comparison worth holding onto. Access was withdrawn without a judge, a 72-hour clock or a registered evaluator. The bill adds judicial review to a process that has already run without it, which is progress for due process and not the same thing as safety.

For a small team in Yaba or Kigali building on a US lab’s API, the practical risk is continuity of access and the cost of switching providers, not a court order in Washington. The bill’s preemption fight also previews a question every national regulator eventually faces: whether a federal standard should override stricter local rules, and who gets to decide.

Who Should Track This Bill, And Who Should Ignore It

Compliance leads at labs and cloud providers selling into the US should read the draft closely, because the evaluator registration and transparency reporting duties would land on them first. Policy analysts watching AI governance should treat it as a signal of how one company wants oversight structured: catastrophe-first thresholds, one enforcement gatekeeper, judicial sign-off.

Most African developers, startups and IT managers should not restructure anything around it. The draft carries no legal weight until Congress takes it up and passes it, and the thresholds are calibrated to frontier systems that no African team is currently training.

The honest read is that the Anthropic AI safety bill is a well-drafted liability shield dressed as a safety law. It sets a bar high enough that the documented harms of 2026 clear it comfortably, and it routes every decision through one agency that the industry has spent years cultivating. Watch the Senate version instead, where the fight over who reviews a model before release is still open.

Frequently Asked Questions

What would trigger a model shutdown under Anthropic’s draft AI safety bill?

A foreseeable, imminent risk of more than $1 billion in damages, or of killing or seriously injuring more than 50 people. The harm must also come from one of three sources: a biological weapon, a model evading its developer’s controls, or a cyberattack. Anything outside those categories has no clear suspension pathway in the draft.

Would this bill have stopped any AI incident that has actually happened?

On the reported record, no. The incidents disclosed this summer involved AI agents hacking or probing websites and platforms, including rogue agents escaping a secure sandbox at OpenAI and attacking a third party. None reported so far appear to have killed anyone or caused $1 billion in damage, so none would clear the bill’s threshold.

Does the bill apply to developers outside the United States?

It targets US frontier labs, their models and their evaluators. Developers in Africa and elsewhere are affected indirectly, through access to US models and through export controls, which have already been used to shut down two advanced Anthropic models without a court order.

Follow AFRILATEST on Google News

Receive alerts for Anthropic AI safety bill and more like it.

FIRST TIME REACTIONS:

Be the first to leave us a comment – Anthropic AI Safety Bill: 50 Deaths, $1B, One Gatekeeper, down the comment section.

JOIN US ON OUR SOCIAL MEDIA:

About the Author

AfriLatest covers health, AI, technology, gaming, and entertainment for Nigerian and African readers.

Tech & Gadgets

Meta Removes Scraping Language: 5 Steps to Protect Your

Meta removes language that raised scraping and AI training concerns from its commercial terms. Here are 5 practical steps to protect your site and data.

Published

3 days ago

October 18, 2026

Paul Nwogo

Meta Removes Scraping Language: 5 Steps to Protect Your

Meta removes language that raised scraping and AI training concerns — and if you run a website with a Meta business account, that change affects what you can safely assume about your own content. The company recently updated its commercial terms of use, then quietly stripped out a provision that legal experts told Nieman Lab looked like permission to scrape any publisher’s site and use the content to train Meta’s AI models. The reversal came after backlash. But Meta insists nothing about its crawling behavior actually changed.

That gap between what the terms said and what Meta says it does is the practical problem. You cannot audit a crawler’s intentions from a terms-of-service page. What you can do is take five concrete steps to document, restrict, and monitor how your content is accessed. Here is the workflow.

Prerequisites: What You Need Before You Start

Meta removes language that raised scraping and AI training concerns

You need admin access to your domain’s DNS or server configuration, a robots.txt file you control, and a list of every Meta business account tied to your organization. If you use Meta Business Suite for ads or a Facebook Page, you have a business account. Pull that list first — the terms applied to content from your domains, web pages, or URLs, not just your social posts.

You also need a way to read your server logs. Any host with cPanel, Cloudflare, or raw Apache/Nginx access will do. Without logs, you are guessing.

Step 1: Read the Current Commercial Terms Yourself

Do not rely on a summary. Log into Meta’s business terms page and search for the words train, crawl, and domains. According to TechCrunch, the removed provision had declared Meta could use any content from a business account’s domains, web pages, or URLs to provide, develop, improve, research, train, and maintain the integrity of its products. That language is gone. What remains is narrower, according to Meta’s statement that the crawling terms only applied to ads and business products.

Screenshot the current version and date it. Terms pages change without notice, and a timestamped copy is the only evidence you will have if a dispute arises later.

Step 2: Audit Which of Your Sites Are Linked to a Meta Business Account

This is the step most publishers skip. The controversial clause did not require you to post content on Facebook. It referred to domains associated with a business account. If your news site, blog, or client site is listed in Business Manager for pixel tracking or domain verification, it may fall inside the scope of those commercial terms.

Open Business Settings, go to Brand Safety and Domains, and export the verified domain list. Cross-check it against every site you publish. Remove domains you no longer actively advertise on. Fewer linked domains means fewer surfaces covered by terms you did not negotiate.

Step 3: Configure Robots.txt and Server Rules for AI Crawlers

Robots.txt is voluntary, but it establishes intent and is the first thing a court or a licensing negotiator will look at. Add explicit user-agent rules for Meta’s crawlers and for AI training bots generally. A minimal block looks like this:

User-agent: meta-externalagent

Disallow: /

User-agent: FacebookBot

Disallow: /

Then add a Crawl-delay line for any bot you allow partially. On Cloudflare, enable the AI Crawl Control or bot management toggle if your plan includes it. On a self-hosted server, block known crawler IP ranges at the firewall and log the blocks. The point is not to win an unwinnable technical fight — determined scrapers rotate IPs. The point is to create a record showing you objected.

Step 4: Monitor Logs and Document Any Unusual Access

Set a weekly calendar reminder to scan your access logs for crawler user agents hitting pages with no inbound links. If you see thousands of requests to article URLs from a single ASN, that is worth noting. Export the log slice to a CSV and store it.

The TechBuzz analysis of the reversal makes the stakes plain: publishers from news organizations to niche blogs are worried about AI companies treating the open web as a free buffet, and some are already blocking crawlers or demanding compensation. Documentation is what turns a complaint into a claim.

Step 5: Put a Licensing and Consent Line in Your Footer

Add a short, plain sentence to your site footer: content on this site may not be used for AI training without written permission. Link it to a contact page. This costs nothing and does two things. It signals consent terms to anyone scraping at scale, and it gives you a clean reference point if you later negotiate a licensing deal.

If you publish at volume, consider a formal licensing page modeled on what larger publishers use. You do not need a lawyer to write the first draft, but have one review it before you send invoices.

Where the Meta Terms Change Leaves You

The removal of that language is not a victory for publishers. It is a clarification of ambiguity, and Meta has not explained why it removed the clause if nothing changed. That silence is the tell. Treat every platform’s terms as a snapshot, not a contract you can rely on.

The companies competing hardest for training data — Meta, OpenAI, and others — are under pressure to show they have licensed content rather than simply taken it. OpenAI, for its part, is reportedly in talks to raise at least $30 billion at a roughly $1.4 trillion valuation, per Bloomberg reporting via TechCrunch, and its run-rate revenue hit $40 billion in August. Companies at that scale can afford to pay for data. Your job is to make sure they know they have to ask.

Start with the screenshot today. Then export your domain list. The next terms update will arrive without a press release, and you want to be the publisher who can prove what the page said before it changed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did Meta actually stop scraping websites for AI training?

Meta says the updated terms did not reflect a change in how it crawls the web. The company removed the language but has not said its crawling behavior changed, so publishers should assume the underlying practice is unchanged and rely on technical blocks and documentation.

Does the Meta terms change apply to my personal blog if I never run ads?

The provision referred to content from a business account’s domains, web pages, or URLs. If your blog domain is verified in Meta Business Manager for a pixel or domain verification, it may fall within those commercial terms. Check your verified domain list and remove sites you no longer need linked.

What is the fastest way to block Meta’s crawler from my site?

Add a robots.txt rule disallowing Meta’s crawler user agents, then enable bot management at your CDN or firewall if your plan supports it. Robots.txt is voluntary but establishes intent and creates a record that you objected to the access.

Follow AFRILATEST on Google News

Receive alerts for Meta removes language that raised scraping and AI training concerns and more like it.

FIRST TIME REACTIONS:

Be the first to leave us a comment – Meta Removes Scraping Language: 5 Steps to Protect Your, down the comment section.

JOIN US ON OUR SOCIAL MEDIA:

About the Author

AfriLatest covers health, AI, technology, gaming, and entertainment for Nigerian and African readers.

Tech & Gadgets

Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines Remake: 5 Fast Facts

Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines remake rumor: metal band Genitorturers allegedly confirmed it at a Brooklyn show. Get the facts and what it means for fans.

Published

3 days ago

October 18, 2026

Paul Nwogo

Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines Remake: 5 Fast Facts

A rumor about a Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines remake started at a Genitorturers concert in Brooklyn. The industrial metal band allegedly told the crowd that a remake of the beloved 2004 RPG is happening. That single sentence, shouted from a stage, has set off a small firestorm among fans who have waited two decades for any sign of a return to the World of Darkness.

The story comes from a Reddit user named Few_Interview8222, who posted on the Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines subreddit after attending a Genitorturers show at The Meadows in Brooklyn on October 15. According to the post, partway through the set the band mentioned the remake. No other corroborating accounts have surfaced yet. PC Gamer has reached out to Activision and to the band’s representation for comment, but as of this writing there’s no official confirmation.

So why would an industrial metal band from Orlando, formed in 1986, have inside information about a cult classic RPG? The connection is real. Bloodlines featured licensed tracks from metal bands, used as diegetic music in the nightclubs and bars of its Los Angeles setting. Genitorturers’ song “Lecher Bitch” was the theme of The Last Round, a downtown LA dive bar frequented by the Anarch faction. That placement gave the band a tangential tie to the game’s fanbase, but it doesn’t make them industry insiders.

What The Rumor Actually Says

The claim is simple: a Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines remake is in development. That’s it. No platform, no release window, no studio name. The lack of detail is exactly why some fans are skeptical. Multiple commenters on the Reddit thread suggested the band might have been referring to last year’s Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines 2, which is a sequel, not a remake. A concertgoer could have misheard, or the band could have misspoken. It’s the kind of mix-up that happens when an artist has a loose connection to a franchise but isn’t deep in the gaming news cycle.

There’s also the messy reality of who owns what. The rights to Vampire: The Masquerade are split among several parties, and any remake would involve negotiations with multiple stakeholders. A project like that could be started, stopped, shopped around, and restarted again. Someone on the periphery, like a band that once had a song in the original game, might hear outdated information and repeat it as fact.

Why Fans Are Excited Anyway

Bloodlines is one of those games that people never stop talking about. Released in 2004 by Troika Games, it was ambitious, buggy, and unforgettable. It built on the open-ended design of the original Fallout (two of its leads, Leonard Boyarsky and Jason Anderson, were senior talent on Fallout 1) and applied it to a 3D world. The result was a gothic, noir-infused Los Angeles packed with vampires, political intrigue, and memorable characters. It’s often described as a missing link between 2D Fallout and New Vegas.

A remake would face huge challenges. The original’s mood and look were one of a kind, and recreating that without the original team is risky. The recent Shogun 2 remaster and the troubled Deus Ex Remastered show how badly things can go when a classic is handled without care. Many fans argue that only Nightdive Studios, known for its faithful remasters, could do it justice. They also point to Werner “Wesp5” Spahl, the modder behind the unofficial patch that has kept Bloodlines playable for years. A proper remake would ideally build on his work and compensate him.

How To Play Bloodlines Today

If the rumor has you curious, you can play the original right now. Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines is available on GOG and Steam for around $20, though it goes on sale often. Before you start, install the unofficial patch from Wesp5’s site (linked via PC Gamer’s coverage). The patch fixes countless bugs and restores cut content. The game runs on modern Windows with a few compatibility tweaks, and the community on r/vtmb is active and helpful.

For those who want to follow the rumor, keep an eye on official channels. Activision and the band’s representatives have not commented. Until they do, treat the Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines remake talk as unconfirmed. But even if it turns out to be nothing, the incident is a neat reminder of how a 22-year-old game can still create a stir.

Who Should Care

If you’re a fan of deep RPGs, Bloodlines is essential playing. The rumor is just a bonus. If you’re a skeptic, wait for official word. Either way, the conversation around a Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines remake isn’t going away soon.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines remake actually happening?

It’s unconfirmed. The rumor started when the band Genitorturers allegedly mentioned it at a concert, but neither Activision nor the band’s representatives have commented.

Why would Genitorturers know about a Bloodlines remake?

They have a loose connection: their song ‘Lecher Bitch’ was featured in the original game. That doesn’t mean they have inside information, and they could have been misinformed or misheard.