Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 577 posts

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

#281

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

mantap wrote: post #228
perf1 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My feeling is they pushing the extra crazy ones though. Watching a clearly not well Person argue crazy theories isn't very convincing to healthy people anyway. On the other Hand people like Dr. Erickson get censored, because they simply dare to question the lock down and argue that there is no evidence supporting it's effectiveness in saving lives.

It might have been correct to say there's no evidence in March (which is not a reason to not do something, we would still be in the Stone Age if every action we took required evidence.). There's plenty of evidence now as we have data for both going into and coming out of lockdown.

There's plenty of weird, contradictory evidence. Many places have come out of lockdown early, been told they're facing certain doom ("Georgia's Experiment in Human Sacrifice" [1]), and then been quietly forgotten when the predicted consequences don't come. It's hard to believe that lockdowns don't do anything at all, but I don't think anyone can honestly say we have definitive proof they were necessary.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/why-georg...

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

#282

Post by Mirioron »

jl2718 wrote: post #258
heinrichhartman wrote: post #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 hav…

The only thing that needs to be constitutionally challenged is whether discretionary content filtering constitutes agency in publication under section 230 of the CDA.

Do I understand you correctly that you're talking about whether discretionary content filtering by a platform makes them into a publisher? This would mean that protections that apply to platforms wouldn't apply to them anymore for things like copyright infringement, right?

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

#283

Post by techntoke »

nelaboras wrote: post #277
techntoke wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can only listen/watch state-approved propaganda.

Yes 5G masts are the cause of covid and need to be all burned down. Vaccines causr autism. Bringing your kids to the doctor is harmful, give them bleach anemas. No harm in spreading lies and absurd conspiracies, right?

Two of the 3 things has been portrayed by the President of the US on Twitter. They are not censoring him.

Additionally, no harm? Movies encourage terrible behavior as well, but we are not trying to ban them on Netflix. If there is a movie where they glamorize alcohol or unprotected sex, there is no effort to have them removed from streaming platforms.

At one point, saying the world was round would have been an absurd conspiracy. Just because something appears and most likely is inaccurate, doesn't mean that we should have a central fact checking authority. That is some 1984 stuff right there. People can make choices for themselves and do their own research. There is no law preventing people like Sandra Bullock from telling people that baby foreskin is good for their skin, even though most people would know that is disgusting.

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

#284

Post by welcome_dragon »

Another thread with a different source here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23219438

This one seems to make me think that the app itself (or its play store listing) maybe has terms in metadata (to help with searching in the store maybe?)

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

#285

Post by laumars »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #222
laumars wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a great pity all the factual comments about YouTube's COVID-19 video removal policy (or "censorship" depending on your viewpoint) are being down voted while all the anti-Google rhetoric is floating above it. I get it's cool to hate Google these days and I'm not saying I agree with the removal of the podcast app, however the removal of that app is consistent with how Google have been maintaining some of their oth…

It's a great pity that you treat legitimate disagreement as mindless anger. "They are removing content on youtube." is a true factual statement. "They are applying the same standard." is not. The motivation may be the same, but the types of removal are very different. As long as their own podcasting app is up in its current form, there is a very good argument that they're not being consistent.

> It's a great pity that you treat legitimate disagreement as mindless anger.

I’m not talking about disagreement of these posts (there’s nothing to disagree, the comments were factually accurate), I’m talking about the comments where people say stuff like “Google's rules only apply to their competitors“, which clearly isn’t true (as I’ve proven).

I also don’t agree with you exaggerating my comments to claim I was accusing people of being mindless and agree when I said no such thing.

> The motivation may be the same, but the types of removal are very different. As long as their own podcasting app is up in its current form, there is a very good argument that they're not being consistent.

When splitting hairs there’s a risk you sub-divide the problem so finely that you then can argue nothing is equivalent and I think that’s what’s happening here.

There’s a saying that goes something like “don’t attributed malice to acts of incompetence” which applies here. People are quick to jump on the offensive when it’s clearly a policy that Google follow on their other platforms and it might well be a decision that is overturned upon review.

I explain this point more eloquently here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23222167

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

#286

Post by blhack »

At this point: I wish they’d just take a stronger stance and ban everything they don’t like. Just ban the political party they don’t like, ban anything that speaks out against China, just ban it all.

We need to go back to the web, where anybody could install Apache and off they went. Bandwidth is cheap now. BitTorrent exists.

I hope google and twitter and Facebook and all the rest just hurry up with all this.

Some other ridiculous examples of them becoming the ministry of truth:

There was a joke image going around on Facebook saying: “Arizona beaches packed during coronavirus!”. A joke about Arizona not having any beaches because it’s a desert. Facebook censors this and gives you some creepy warning before your allowed to see it.

Or how about: there is a doctor from the university of Minnesota who is running a large scale, international, placebo controlled RCT for a potential covid prophylactic. Twitter is censoring his links to find out more about the study. HE IS A DOCTOR RUNNING A STUDY AT A MAJOR UNI, and twitter is telling him he is misinformation.

It’s all just disgusting and is exactly what a lot of people feared would happen with these companies.

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

#287

Post by jpindar »

solarkraft wrote: post #63
square_usual wrote: post #11

This is like Google banning the YouTube app from the play store for having videos about covid that aren't from government sources. Insane stuff.

> Insane stuff Google is actually applying the same standard in this case (or at least attempting to). They're also fighting conspiracy theories on YouTube.

They're certainly eager to push ads for conspiracy theory websites at me, even though I've never watched those sorts of videos.

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

#288

Post by falcolas »

scarface74 wrote: post #240
heinrichhartman wrote: post #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 hav…

You really trust the US court system to be impartial? Should Apple/Google be forced to carry pornographic apps? White supremacists apps? Apps that invade people’s privacy? Which government should hold this responsibility? Should we have an international committee deciding this?

I expect them to be more impartial than a multinational for-profit company whose stakeholders care about little other than their bottom line.

Pornography and hate speech have plenty of legal precedent. And if I'm honest, if it's legal in a given country, why shouldn't it be available?

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

#290

Post by scarface74 »

chroem- wrote: post #280
scarface74 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t it a little - like 200+ years - late for that?

We're approaching levels of hyperpartisanship not seen since the civil war. I don't think this is a healthy state of being for our country.

You think we all got together and sung Kum Bah Yah after the Civil War? Are you forgetting about the segregation? The Civil Rights Movement? Vietnam?
Post reply on HN