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

561–570 of 577 posts

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

#561

Post by AmericanChopper »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #555
AmericanChopper wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true. The default state of US law was that those who published without moderation were protected, and those that did moderate were not. Section 230 was created specifically because publishers who moderated user generated comments had been successfully sued for defamation [0]. Section 230 did not preserve any rights at all, it created entirely new ones. Companies were previously able to enjoy common carrie…

> This is not true. The default state of US law was that those who published without moderation were protected, and those that did moderate were not. Section 230 was created specifically because publishers who moderated user generated comments had been successfully sued for defamation [0]. > Section 230 did not preserve any rights at all, it created entirely new ones. Companies were previously able to enjoy common ca…

The bit where you claim that section 230 does not in fact create an entirely new set of legal protections for content distributors...

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

#562

Post by saagarjha »

SkyBelow wrote: post #545
scarface74 wrote: post #274

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.

There is the solution of taking away power from the government to fix this. You would need to limit the punishment of people to be the same as corporations. For example, if a corporation commits negligence that kills people and gets fined 2% of its income, then the penalty for negligent homicide becomes a 2% yearly income with no jail time. The problem is that right now the government will jail an individual and fine…

I don't see how that would work, because fining a corporation indirectly fines every employee they need to lay off and can no longer find a job. Of course, we should fine corporations more, but trying to treat a company like a person is just a stupid metaphor in general and extending that will lead you nowhere sane.

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

#563

Post by saagarjha »

a9entroy wrote: post #519
koheripbal wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're advocating moving this power from massive corporations to the government, because at least the government has some accountability, whereas Google has NONE.

(Trying to act devil's advocate) Google is a publicly listed company. Members of the public, either directly or indirectly partially own Google. Google has a duty towards its shareholders. Isn't that some accountability? I know that not everyone owns Google stock. But I'm guessing hundreds of thousands of people do.

Google's shareholders generally have very different interests than its users do.

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

#564

Post by saagarjha »

Spivak wrote: post #369
gitgud wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely Google's automated tools wouldn't automatically suspend an app that has 5 stars and over 500,000 reviews .... surely

That kind "popularity content" policy will never work because because then scammers will just buy apps with good reputation. This describes the entire browser extension marketplace. Any extension with a good reputation and a broad permission set will sell for a good bit of money.

That sounds like a spot where a human can step in?

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

#565

Post by thaumasiotes »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #561
thaumasiotes wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is not true. The default state of US law was that those who published without moderation were protected, and those that did moderate were not. Section 230 was created specifically because publishers who moderated user generated comments had been successfully sued for defamation [0]. > Section 230 did not preserve any rights at all, it created entirely new ones. Companies were previously able to enjoy common ca…

The bit where you claim that section 230 does not in fact create an entirely new set of legal protections for content distributors...

Just think about it for a split second.

I said that in the world without section 230, you start with immunity from responsibility for content provided by other parties, and you lose that immunity if you moderate those other parties' content.

Whereas, in the world with section 230, you start with immunity from responsibility for content provided by other parties, and you keep that immunity if you moderate those other parties' content.

On the other hand, you've provided the counterpoint that everything I said is absolutely correct, and I should be ashamed of putting out such ridiculous misinformation.

You are trying to disagree as strongly as you possibly can -- despite the fact that you agree with me in full. What's going on?

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

#566

Post by tiagobraw »

dane-pgp wrote: post #488
blhack wrote: post #286

At this point: I wish they’d just take a stronger stance and ban everything they don’t like. Just ban the political party they don’t like, ban anything that speaks out against China, just ban it all. We need to go back to the web, where anybody could install Apache and off they went. Bandwidth is cheap now. BitTorrent exists. I hope google and twitter and Facebook and all the rest just hurry up with all this. Some ot…

Perhaps a better strategy would be for Google to create an account for the head of government of each country, and give that account the ability to ban any app or video or search result in the respective country. (Such accounts would also have the ability to delegate their powers to other users as required). Google could write a public blog post saying "We've sacked all our internal moderators and censors, so if you…

what could go wrong with this approach

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

#568

Post by delian66 »

crispyambulance wrote: post #166
detaro wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're logged into YT, you can try deleting the video from your watch history.

Yeah, I've been doing this a lot lately. It's kind of disappointing how easily the recommendations shift once you click on a video that's sketchy. In my case, I once made the bad decision to watch a Jordan Peterson video. By itself it wasn't crazy, he was mildly provocative, a little paternalistic, not my cup of tea. But geez, the trash that then ended up appearing in the side bar after that was awful. I find that if…

So you effectively desire a way to build your own bubble, and cast it in stone, and also give even more information to Google (what you do not like) ???

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

#569

Post by delian66 »

prostheticvamp wrote: post #265
perf1 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My feeling is they pushing the extra crazy ones though. Watching a clearly not well Person argue crazy theories isn't very convincing to healthy people anyway. On the other Hand people like Dr. Erickson get censored, because they simply dare to question the lock down and argue that there is no evidence supporting it's effectiveness in saving lives.

> On the other Hand people like Dr. Erickson get censored, because they simply dare to question the lock down Erickson, among other things, makes provably false statements about the prevalence and mortality of covid19. You’re allowed to be misinformed as a private citizen; you’re not allowed to grandstand in public as a physician and spread misinformation. He’s lucky he only got deplatformed, rather than have his lic…

> Erickson, among other things, makes provably false statements about the prevalence and mortality of covid19.

Such as?

Post reply on HN