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

461–470 of 577 posts

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

#461

Post by ashtonkem »

leereeves wrote: post #456
ashtonkem wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Google is paying for some content ... then they’re acting like a publisher. There is case law to the contrary. AOL was granted 230 immunity when the issue at hand was about what a contractor of theirs said. > That’s a question to be answered by democracy, not in a corporate board room Or we could encourage a proliferation of choices on the internet, rather than handing whichever party is in power the right to su…

> Or we could encourage a proliferation of choices on the internet, rather than handing whichever party is in power the right to suppress the speech of the other. I'm talking about preventing Google from exercising that power, not giving that power to the government. No one is proposing to repeal the first amendment. I'm very much in favor of a proliferation of choices on the internet, but we don't really have that a…

I’ve already made this point at least twice; getting the government involved in preventing Google from moderating content is giving the power to the government. Unless if you want to completely ban the ability of Google to moderate anything, then you are giving the power to someone to decide what is and is not protected from moderation on Google. This power to decide what is and is not immune from moderation would be hugely powerful, and would give the ability of the government to declare which ideological believes are and are not protected from moderation; which in effect would be hugely detrimental to the first amendment.

And even if you strip Google’s immunity from civil damages away, you are handing power over all internet speech over to the courts and anyone with enough time and money to use them. From a citizens perspective there is very little difference between censorship via the first or third branch of the government; both represent the erosion of the first amendment.

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

#462

Post by leereeves »

ashtonkem wrote: post #461
leereeves wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or we could encourage a proliferation of choices on the internet, rather than handing whichever party is in power the right to suppress the speech of the other. I'm talking about preventing Google from exercising that power, not giving that power to the government. No one is proposing to repeal the first amendment. I'm very much in favor of a proliferation of choices on the internet, but we don't really have that a…

I’ve already made this point at least twice; getting the government involved in preventing Google from moderating content is giving the power to the government. Unless if you want to completely ban the ability of Google to moderate anything , then you are giving the power to someone to decide what is and is not protected from moderation on Google. This power to decide what is and is not immune from moderation would b…

Similar regulations have existed in the past (common carrier and the fairness doctrine, for example) without giving the government the power to "declare which ideological believes are and are not protected from moderation".

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

#464

Post by moftz »

9HZZRfNlpR wrote: post #141
encom wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just think about how extremely dystopian it is, to punish someone for relaying information that is not approved by the government. The slope is getting slippier every day.

Sweden and herd immunity is official government source? Also this is the only country where scientists are in 100% control, politicians don't make these shots what so ever, this is their policy for this pandemic. So all these anti lockdown folks can always have that as an official government source and possibly also scientific because of the way they set it up there. Of course at least in Europe all the countries are…

Sweden is 7th in confirmed cases per capita. I'm not sure you can point to them as a success story.

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

#465

Post by roenxi »

nelaboras wrote: post #267
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 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...

There is no fundamental law saying American multinationals need to run the entire world. I'd be comfortable with the idea that a company with as much data as Google shouldn't be allowed to operate a trans-national operation for military reasons. The Chinese acted prudently when they froze Google out of their domestic market.

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

#466

Post by ashtonkem »

leereeves wrote: post #462
ashtonkem wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve already made this point at least twice; getting the government involved in preventing Google from moderating content is giving the power to the government. Unless if you want to completely ban the ability of Google to moderate anything , then you are giving the power to someone to decide what is and is not protected from moderation on Google. This power to decide what is and is not immune from moderation would b…

Similar regulations have existed in the past (common carrier and the fairness doctrine, for example) without giving the government the power to "declare which ideological believes are and are not protected from moderation".

The fairness doctrine was only constitutional because there were a limited number of channels (Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC), and it was impossible for anyone else to create one due to FCC regulations. I genuinely doubt that it would be constitutional today with cable television, let alone the internet.

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

#467

Post by scarface74 »

ksk wrote: post #433
CWuestefeld wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I argue that the government has essentially zero accountability, while the private sector has a huge degree. Our bandwidth for holding government accountable is so limited as to be useless. Consider the federal gov't, since I think it's what you're mostly talking about anyway. We get to vote for * 1x Presidential primary every 4 years, from a field of, let's say, 8 to be generous: 3 bits * 1x President every 4 years,…

>Yes, we can write letters and stuff, but that doesn't really allow us to hold them accountable Public protests/rallies/marches do bring about change in government/government policies. Many politicians do care about their public image, and are susceptible to manipulation based on public pressure. >Compare that with private sector. Even for entities like Google, we've got huge latitude to vote with our feet. We can us…

So now we need the government to intervene for people's own good because people willingly give their money to Big Tech?

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

#468

Post by lbeltrame »

matwood wrote: post #416
lbeltrame wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Studies are coming in daily showing no benefit from HCQ. As this article [1] points out, any other drug would not be looked at further given the current set of information. But, since HCQ has been seen as a cure, a lot more time and money will be spent showing the same results - no effect. [1] https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/no-benefit-fro...

Most of these are retrospective and observational, and they fail to answer the question posed by the very controversial (and flawed) Raoult paper: that is, that early administration during the course of the disease provides a clinical benefit. Also in many the control is standard of care, which can mean everything and nothing.

The positive studies suffer from the same issues, by the way. Especially controls are pretty bad.

These studies can't give the answers that a proper randomized controlled trial (against placebo), like the U of Minnesota one (but there are a few others) can.

Some studies focus on mortality, but I doubt HCQ helps there: like remedisivir, the measure should be time to symptom clearance / hospital discharge. Time of administration also matters a lot (see again the NEJM paper on lopinavir / ritonavir, a failure, then the Lancet paper that gives more insight at earlier time points). One study I've read gave HCQ at 16 days post symptom onset (median): that time is definitely too late for any antiviral therapy.

I reiterate: I have no personal interest in having HCQ succeed. What I want to see is good science.

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

#469

Post by scarface74 »

cft wrote: post #448
scarface74 wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, so would you rather Google not warn users of the possible danger?

I would rather change some obsure the settings once (like tapping 5 times on phone info) than being pestered every time

Do you also log into your computer as root or administrator so you don't have to be bothered with pesky warnings?
Post reply on HN