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

Post by tzs » Mon, May 18, 2020, 2:28 PM UTC

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.

Post by akimball » Mon, May 18, 2020, 2:28 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #281

mantap wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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://w…

Post by dreamcompiler » Mon, May 18, 2020, 2:28 PM UTC

lbeltrame wrote: post #189

dreamcompiler wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where is the proof of inefficacy? It doesn't work that way. New drugs are assumed ineffective until proven otherwise. A government official with no medical training recommending an unproven drug based on a few anecdotes is the height of irresponsibility.

Currently the studies can't tell if HCQ is effective or not because all of them have been wasted opportunities for many different reasons, from too few patients, to absence of controls, to too late administration (the NEJM paper and the Lancet paper on lopinavir/ritonavir tell important lessons on this topic). We're in the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" territory. I would say HCQ is a "lead" in the…

Post by toofy » Mon, May 18, 2020, 2:31 PM UTC

crottypeter wrote: post #151

pxtail wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to watch something one-off, some interesting tidbit outside of your curated feed then doing it in incognito mode is required, otherwise, as you noted you are doomed.

If you find it here and delete it, I think it will cease to influence your recommended videos. https://www.youtube.com/feed/history

Post by carapace » Mon, May 18, 2020, 2:32 PM UTC

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.