311–320 of 577 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am impressed you remember your password from that long ago.
Pretty sure password managers existed four years ago.
Pretty ironic given that an "official government source" advocated the ineffective and dangerous drug hydroxychloroquine and suggested people inject bleach into their bodies. Edit: Changed hydroxyquinone to the correct hydroxychloroquine.
Where is the proof of inefficacy? For the record, there's no proof of efficacy either, because all the trials done that prove or disprove efficacy of hydroxychloroquine were flawed in one point or the other (at least the ones I've read). To give an answer to this endless debate, a proper, randomized clinical trial is needed. And the conditions set correctly, too: lopinavir and ritonavir were, per NEJM, not successful…
This is a really odd idea. Drugs are normally assumed ineffective until proven otherwise.
I just downloaded google podcast app. Did a search for corona, there are a bunch of results. Google is not a government entity, neither are all the podcasts I could find using it. I hope they will ban their own podcast app pretty soon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that they have to act across borders. Examples: In the EU you don't need to filter pornography the same way as in the US. In the US you don't need to filter personal information (eg individuals' faces) the same way as in the EU. Or does Google need to ban insults of the Thai king? Which legislation should apply? Already now China has split the global internet in a China and non-China part...
Is that a problem, or an opportunity? If we create an effective decentralized mechanic to act across jurisdictions, maybe we'd solve more than our immediate problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No I’m just amazed that people are willing to give government more power - the same government who would like nothing more than to have more power to intrude on people’s life.
We're advocating moving this power from massive corporations to the government, because at least the government has some accountability, whereas Google has NONE.
We have a general principle of due process and contract law that can be applied here in insisting that "massive corporations" play nice. Reigning in "massive corporations" doesn't require any new governmental powers.
I'm saying this as someone who leans libertarian but I don't think that is in conflict with the concepts of due process and reasonable contracts. The Devil is always in the details but it isn't an either/or choice.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may be automated based on frequency of reports, but either way this is unlikely to be company policy. The people who make these decisions are relatively low-level employees following a company guidebook. The guidebook says it has to go? It has to go. The employee doesn't want to get fired. I doubt it'll stick.
>...but either way this is unlikely to be company policy Perhaps you haven't seen the article because it's behind an Apple News link. There's a screenshot of a message stating company policy as follows: "Pursuant to Section 8.3 of the Developer Agreement and the Enforcement policy, apps referencing Covid-19, or related terms, in any form will only be approved for distribution on Google Play if they are published, com…
> Perhaps you haven't seen the article because it's behind an Apple News link. There's a screenshot of a message stating company policy as follows:
> "Pursuant to Section 8.3 of the Developer Agreement and the Enforcement policy, apps referencing Covid-19, or related terms, in any form will only be approved for distribution on Google Play if they are published, commissioned or authorized by official government entities or public health organizations"
How does their own browser not run afoul of this policy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s impossible. Congress exempted the entire internet from court on something like this. Look at the communications decency act.
only if they stay neutral. This goes beyond that.
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 problem is that they have to act across borders. Examples: In the EU you don't need to filter pornography the same way as in the US. In the US you don't need to filter personal information (eg individuals' faces) the same way as in the EU. Or does Google need to ban insults of the Thai king? Which legislation should apply? Already now China has split the global internet in a China and non-China part...
If this problem is not addressed, the internet may well segregate along national boundaries (just as you describe).