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

Google bans my events app for referencing Covid-19, or related terms

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 219 posts

Re: Google bans my events app for referencing Covid-19, or related terms

#31

Post by logfromblammo »

rootusrootus wrote: post #18

Since Google is taking such a strong position against what they view as COVID19 misinformation, are they liable if I get sick as a result of some misinformation that managed to get through their filters? I might not try to go after some small time app developer or other rando on the Internet, but if Google is willing to stand behind their guarantee with those wonderfully deep pockets...

Yes. They are partially liable if you went through them.

Censorship of any content implies approval of all remaining content. One can't be protected from liability as a common carrier if one is curating.

So if you have been provably harmed by anything Google has served you, you can sue the owner of the content and join Google as a defendant.

(Not a lawyer.)

Re: Google bans my events app for referencing Covid-19, or related terms

#32

Post by scarface74 »

derekp7 wrote: post #29
scarface74 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternate app stores have been allowed on Android since day one.

But only if you set a security flag to "allow anything to be installed". I want a security flag that says "allow apps from sources signed by the following keys", where I can import app store keys from the app store(s) of my choosing. So I'm still protected, as long as I trust those app stores that I import.

Yeah, that's going to work really well for the average consumer....

Re: Google bans my events app for referencing Covid-19, or related terms

#33

Post by scarface74 »

unethical_ban wrote: post #28
scarface74 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternate app stores have been allowed on Android since day one.

Getting F-Droid is not "hard" but it isn't easy, and IIRC Google's Android gives off warnings. (Also it isn't as refined as the Play Store). I believe the parent was suggesting, like with Windows/IE decades ago, that Android phones may have to come with a prompt to enable alternative stores to Play.

That worked really well for Windows....

Re: Google bans my events app for referencing Covid-19, or related terms

#34

Post by FreakyT »

generalpass wrote: post #9

And how long before Google decides that all detected side-loaded apps are harmful and automatically removed?

I mean, at least they allow sideloading at all, which is more than can be said for that other App Store ecosystem. Still hoping the EU will force Apple to allow sideloading on iPhones, but I’m not super optimistic.

Re: Google bans my events app for referencing Covid-19, or related terms

#35

Post by mavsman »

My brother made an app to help people remember to wash their hands when they get home. Simple. Free. No ads. Very minimal. Tracks location locally but doesn't collect it or make any network calls. Google denied him from publishing to the app store until he removed all references to Coronavirus or COVID-19.

I only downloaded it because he's my brother but I now realize how helpful it is and it's frustrating that potentially helpful apps are getting banned when they're not even attempting to profit.

Re: Google bans my events app for referencing Covid-19, or related terms

#36

Post by slightwinder »

sschueller wrote: post #14
leppr wrote: post #8

I've long wished there was a more encompassing alternative to F-Droid, which would include the same payment facilities as Google Play (paid app, in-app payments, subscriptions), allow proprietary apps (but still give FOSS as a search filter and show it as a prominent feature on the app page), and offer plenty of user curation features ala Steam and make filters optional (which would allow communities of independent r…

Someone needs to take this to the EU courts and force google (and apple) to allow the use of alternate app stores that are not technically hindered. It was done with Windows and Explorer so I don't see why this is any different.

How are app stores on Android technically hindered? I thought except the additional step for installing them, there is no difference in ability?

Re: Google bans my events app for referencing Covid-19, or related terms

#37

Post by ppseafield »

scarface74 wrote: post #21
nocturnial wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Epic games tried to side step google: > When Fortnite launched on mobile in 2018, Epic Games very notably sidestepped the Google Play Store and pushed users to download the title directly from their website, an effort made to avoid the substantial revenue cuts that Google takes from in-app purchases of Play Store downloads. After 18 months of harsh rhetoric regarding platform gatekeeping, Epic Games says that Fortnit…

And Epic conveniently forgot to mention the part about the security warning being well deserved when it came to Fortnite... https://www.cnet.com/news/fortnites-battle-royale-with-andro...

Hmm... Well deserved, or a poor security choice for Android? The vulnerability appears to be that any app can overwrite an APK downloaded to external storage with a FileObserver. How is that not pathologically bad security on Android's part?

> Any app with the WRITE_EXTERNAL_STORAGE permission can substitute the APK immediately after the download is completed and the fingerprint is verified. This is easily done using a FileObserver. The Fortnite Installer will proceed to install the substituted (fake) APK.

Re: Google bans my events app for referencing Covid-19, or related terms

#38

Post by elliekelly »

davidg109 wrote: post #11

I have a strong love/hate relationship with all this App Store oligopoly. Love because often they are weeding out apps with security/privacy concerns. On the flip side, cases like this where you are 600 feet buried in red tape trying to talk some sense into someone at the company. You can try to talk to someone at Google, but good luck with that. I think you’re doing what’s best now. Shine a spotlight so far up Googl…

I wonder why Apple can’t treat apps the same way they treat charging cables? The Apple approved cables are usually a bit more money but I’m willing to pay a few extra bucks because Apple provides a valuable service to me - I know the cable is much less likely to fry my device. Likewise I’d be willing to pay an extra dollar or two for an app that jumped through all of Apple’s hoops.

Re: Google bans my events app for referencing Covid-19, or related terms

#39

Post by roblabla »

derekp7 wrote: post #29
scarface74 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternate app stores have been allowed on Android since day one.

But only if you set a security flag to "allow anything to be installed". I want a security flag that says "allow apps from sources signed by the following keys", where I can import app store keys from the app store(s) of my choosing. So I'm still protected, as long as I trust those app stores that I import.

That has changed somewhat recently (android O I believe?). Now, when an app tries to start an installation, Android will bring you to that app's setting page where you can toggle an option "Allow this app to install other apps" or something along those lines. It's a lot more straightforward than it used to be.

That said, auto-updates are still not possible without root access, I believe.

Re: Google bans my events app for referencing Covid-19, or related terms

#40

Post by danShumway »

logfromblammo wrote: post #31
rootusrootus wrote: post #18

Since Google is taking such a strong position against what they view as COVID19 misinformation, are they liable if I get sick as a result of some misinformation that managed to get through their filters? I might not try to go after some small time app developer or other rando on the Internet, but if Google is willing to stand behind their guarantee with those wonderfully deep pockets...

Yes. They are partially liable if you went through them. Censorship of any content implies approval of all remaining content. One can't be protected from liability as a common carrier if one is curating. So if you have been provably harmed by anything Google has served you, you can sue the owner of the content and join Google as a defendant. (Not a lawyer.)

> Censorship of any content implies approval of all remaining content. One can't be protected from liability as a common carrier if one is curating.

No, that's literally the opposite of current US law. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...

Moderation does not imply endorsement of remaining content. It only implies disapproval of the rejected content.

There are plenty of people who who would like to change the current legal system, but (thankfully) by either grace, luck, or perseverance they have so far been prevented from doing so.

Post reply on HN