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

291–300 of 577 posts

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

#291

Post by buttersbrian »

swiley wrote: post #179
lord_erasmus wrote: post #61

In most of these stories featuring Google abusing their power to remove apps, it's usually a matter of some automated tool gone wrong and the problem is solved a couple of days later. But this time it's different, they are actually asking developers to censor themselves if they are not affiliated with a gov.

Meh. If I left an automation roaming the streets and it ate someone’s kid I would get in trouble. If google’s automations are broken and they harm the world then they need to be responsible and fix them or replace them with people.

But automating something that might eat a kid, versus inadvertently blocking an app access very very different. This why no one is tackling a nanny bot --- repercussions.

Agreed on the last part.

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

#292

Post by scarface74 »

rukittenme wrote: post #278
scarface74 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Should Apple/Google be forced to carry pornographic apps? White supremacists apps? Apps that invade people’s privacy? My computer allows racist pornography and its the greatest invention in the history of mankind. As far as I can tell, iPhones have not lived up to that legacy.

Yes, but should Apple be forced to sell it? You can buy a DVD player and a TV from Walmart that allows you to view pornographic and racist content but aren’t forced to sell it.

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

#293

Post by scarface74 »

falcolas wrote: post #288
scarface74 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Are you paying attention to the actions of the modern judicial system in the US that votes along party lines?

You really think that judges with their own religious and political biases and with lifetime appointments “care about you”?

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

#294

Post by Dylan16807 »

techntoke wrote: post #279
Dylan16807 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That comment's only mention of fear is the fear of covid. What are you insultingly responding to?

> The fear is justified and the extreme prejudice against Covid-19 misinformation (most of which has an agenda behind it) is warranted. This is the same stuff that was said during Iraq War. That it was justified. Later, we found out that it wasn't and that we attacked a country even though it was Saudi Arabia that was primarily responsible. Now, they are trying to say that extreme measures, such as censoring people w…

> This is the same stuff that was said during Iraq War.

But the person you replied to isn't talking about that.

> That it was justified.

This is like the "they called [genius] wrong" argument. Lots of people claim things are justified. Some of them are wrong, some of them are right. You can't make a blanket judgement.

> Blocking information, just because it may be inaccurate, doesn't justify it. You then have a centralized power determining what information is accurate like the events that lead to the Iraq War.

That fiasco didn't happen because information was being blocked.

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

#295

Post by rivercreek »

mschuster91 wrote: post #64
enos_feedler wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This actually feels like an intentional move by Google to NOT get split up. Don’t worry government, we got your back! We’ll ban things that aren’t approved by you!

No, it's a service to public health to take down crap . People spreading "covid19 is fake" propaganda are literally getting themselves, their parents and friends killed . Freedom of speech also comes with responsibility - the responsibility of not endangering others with your speech. Similar as inciting hatred and screaming "fire" in a crowded restaurant will earn you jail time, people should be happy it's only their…

You have an undying, oft-repeated support for Israel's bloodthirsty apartheid.

Might that be related to the raw, barely-disguised authoritarian hatred displayed in your post?

>people should be happy it's only their YT channel killed and not their sorry asses landing in jail!

>I would have no problem if covid19 was taking out only those propaganda spouting idiots from the gene pool,

>I'd like to throw these idiots in a jail cell and let the keys sink to the bottom of the Mariana Trench

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

#296

Post by laumars »

sp332 wrote: post #230
laumars wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stuf…

I disagree that they are being consistent. An almost-equivalent move would be suspending the entire YouTube app, and making a new entry in the Play Store after they have removed all offending content. But at least YouTube has some ability to remove content, so that would actually make more sense than suspending Podcast Addict which plays third-party-hosted media.

They’re suspending accounts on YouTube and pulling videos, just like they’re doing with apps on their Play Store. They can’t moderate the podcasts posted but they can moderate the apps and videos posted. So of course it’s internally consistent.

The real question is whether it should be consistently upheld without exceptions and the answer to that is obviously “no” because some apps are hubs to user curated content like that podcast app is.

As for your comment about them suspending their entire YouTube app, you talk as if this was a management exec decision rather than rouge judgement that will inevitably get overturned.

Google isn’t a single entity. It’s a collection of people and algorithms all making their own judgements based on Google’s policies. Sometimes they miss stuff they should moderate and sometimes they get overzealous and remove content they shouldn’t. There is such a large grey area and scope for personal judgement that you have to expect some unpopular verdicts from time to time. It’s shit but no two situations are identical so it’s a problem that’s impossible to avoid. The real tell is whether Google reverse the decision once the complaint gets escalated.

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

#297

Post by falcolas »

scarface74 wrote: post #293
falcolas wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Are you paying attention to the actions of the modern judicial system in the US that votes along party lines? You really think that judges with their own religious and political biases and with lifetime appointments “care about you”?

By that same token, are you paying attention to the actions being taken by Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon?

There are no clean actors here, but the difference between the judicial system and the big companies is that the judicial system has people who care about more than just profits.

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

#298

Post by dspillett »

Crosseye_Jack wrote: post #24
ipsum2 wrote: 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…

> 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…

> > 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.

OK then, it is like asking a search/video/advertising company to remove all such references from its search, and hosted videos, and other properties, and banning their apps & services until they do.

I don't see the youtube app being banned for all the C19 rubbish they are currently hosting and indexing. Or the Google news app for the C19 rubish it is indexing and actively pushing to some people (depending on what the relevant sacred algorithm, hallowed be its name, decides who should see).

What they appear to be expecting Podcast Addict to do is exactly what they themselves have said they can't do. Either it is not possible (this is the case IMO) in which case it is not fair to expect it of PcA, or it is possible and Google are hypocrites of the highest order in this matter.

EDIT: after reading the rest of TFA...

Even worse "additionally, Google isn’t applying these same rules to its own podcast app – Google Podcasts" - we don't even need to argue service equivalence to show that as hypocritical.

Of course this is most likely to be an undesirable side effect of some automated system. I'll give Google that benefit of the doubt if they reinstate PcA immediately and apologise for their cock-up.

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

#299

Post by mschuster91 »

rivercreek wrote: post #295
mschuster91 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's a service to public health to take down crap . People spreading "covid19 is fake" propaganda are literally getting themselves, their parents and friends killed . Freedom of speech also comes with responsibility - the responsibility of not endangering others with your speech. Similar as inciting hatred and screaming "fire" in a crowded restaurant will earn you jail time, people should be happy it's only their…

You have an undying, oft-repeated support for Israel's bloodthirsty apartheid. Might that be related to the raw, barely-disguised authoritarian hatred displayed in your post? > people should be happy it's only their YT channel killed and not their sorry asses landing in jail! > I would have no problem if covid19 was taking out only those propaganda spouting idiots from the gene pool, > I'd like to throw these idiots…

> You have an undying, oft-repeated support for Israel's bloodthirsty apartheid.

I have literally no idea how you're digging up Israel in this story, and while you are correct that I lean towards the Zionist side I'm not a fan of either Netanyahu or Trump's "peace plan" idea.

> Might that be related to the raw, barely-disguised authoritarian hatred displayed in your post?

Authoritarian hatred? I only dislike people who refuse to accept hard scientific truth, and especially people who willingly and knowingly endanger others with a deadly disease. Murder is punished in almost all countries of this world, and people who are trying to deny the dangers of the inarguably worst pandemic in a hundred years are not much short of accessories to murder IMO.

Post reply on HN