Live data from Hacker News

Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content

reclaimthenet.org

211–220 of 577 posts

Re: Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content

#211
This is the result of out-sourcing juristic work to private companies:

If we treat Android, Window, Twitter, Facebook, as public spaces/goods, then private companies should not have a say in what is allowed/not-allowed on their platforms. This is work for the courts and police to decide and enforce.

If we treat those platforms as private. Then we are playing in s/o's backyard. You are totally at their mercy. They have every right to kick you out if they don't like your face. It's their property. You are a guest.

I think we need constituted digital public spaces and platforms with:

- democratic footing (users are in charge)

- public ownership

- division of power (politicians =!= judges =!= police)

- effective policing

In such a system it would be for independent courts to decide which Apps can be distributed and which not. Those courts would be bound to a constitution/body of law, which applies to all parties a like.

Yes, this will be expensive. Yes, you will have to give up some privacy. But you will be a citizen in a society, and not a stranger playing in a backyard.

Maybe the current platforms can be coerced into a system which approximates the above. But I have my doubts. I hope in 200years people will have figured this out, and will look back to this age as the digital dark ages.

Re: Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content

#212
post #207
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s an interesting example because YouTube are also removing COVID-19 content from some disreputable sources. To be clear: I’m not defending Google, I also don’t agree with the podcast takedown.

But they're not asking the podcast hosts to remove the content. They're penalizing a podcast player app, which has no ability to remove bad content.

Again, I didn’t say I agree with the apps removal, just that Google we’re at least being internally consistent.

With regards to the app removal, do we know it is a Google management decision and not the work of an overzealous app reviewer or an algorithm (the latter being the way Google usually operate)?

The reason I talk about internal consistency is because it is hard getting the right balance between removing stuff that should be vs stuff that shouldn’t and that problem is only magnified when when doing so at scale. So if this were a management then I totally understand the pitchforks but if it’s a false positive an in algorithm then hopefully Google will rectify and we can all go back to moaning about Electron or whatever the next meme is.

Re: Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content

#213

This is the result of out-sourcing juristic work to private companies: If we treat Android, Window, Twitter, Facebook, as public spaces/goods, then private companies should not have a say in what is allowed/not-allowed on their platforms. This is work for the courts and police to decide and enforce. If we treat those platforms as private. Then we are playing in s/o's backyard. You are totally at their mercy. They hav…

If they want to be private someone will take them to court for advertising drugs or something like that. They should have stayed neutral.

Re: Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content

#215
post #205
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely Google's automated tools wouldn't automatically suspend an app that has 5 stars and over 500,000 reviews .... surely

There have been too many cases of a popular app being bought by scammers and repurposed. They can't exempt an app from being suspended just because it's popular.

Exempting it from automatic suspension is not exempting it from suspension.

Re: Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content

#216

This is the result of out-sourcing juristic work to private companies: If we treat Android, Window, Twitter, Facebook, as public spaces/goods, then private companies should not have a say in what is allowed/not-allowed on their platforms. This is work for the courts and police to decide and enforce. If we treat those platforms as private. Then we are playing in s/o's backyard. You are totally at their mercy. They hav…

If they want to be private someone will take them to court for advertising drugs or something like that. They should have stayed neutral.

I agree, that this would have been the better option for them. Now they are stuck with their conent-screening frams, and censoring algorithms. It's a mess.

Still. Even if they did take that turn. I don't think they would have stayed truly neutral. Lot's of ways to penalize competition without banning them from your platform. A wolf is a bad shepherd.

Re: Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content

#218
post #3

My favorite (and only) podcasting app. I hope someone who works at Google reads this and flag it internally. This quote really sums up how ridiculous Google is being: > What Google is asking of Podcast Addict would be comparable to Google asking a web browser app to remove references to all the websites and social media posts that reference the coronavirus unless the reference comes from an official government entity…

I am not a fan of app stores due to these kinds of ecosystem issues, and could never find any good web only podcast players, so I just made my own. It's public but it only really has podcasts I like in the directory.

Re: Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content

#219
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> asking a web browser app to remove references to all the websites and social media posts Except usually a web browser doesn't include a index of sites, You go to a another site (Google/Bing) for that. If a browser does include "recommended sites" the landing pages of those sites best keep to Google's and Apples rules. For an extreme example, If Firefox was promoting PornHub on the new tab page we could understand w…

YouTube constantly recommends me COVID-19 conspiracy videos since I dared to watch one that was popular here in Germany. Basically on every video I watch I have now german conspiracy videos as recommendations. I did neither like the video or did I subscribe the channel. It's beyond fucked up what Google is doing.

There are plugins for Firefox to hide all recommendations and the start page of YouTube. Did this a couple of months back, and it has honestly made me happier and with a lot more control over watchtime etc.

I now live in the Subscription section, and it's great!

Re: Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content

#220
post #93
post #80

This is once again an example for how freedom of speech is becoming more and more controlled by tech companies. I'm a little worried about this phenomenon. Google is not constructed by journalists. Freedom of speech might not be first priority for Google.

Just think about how extremely dystopian it is, to punish someone for relaying information that is not approved by the government. The slope is getting slippier every day.

Imagine allowing someone to relay information that causes the decimation of the human population. Just wanted to give an idea of what the other side of the argument looks like.
Post reply on HN