Live data from Hacker News

Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store

qoto.org

221–230 of 996 posts

Re: Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store

#221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. But when you start denying basic infrastructure to those with viewpoints you dislike --- domain names, DDOS protection, app store distribution --- you're no longer trying to just maintain some particular community's culture, but instead eradicate certain speech from public life. It should be illegal to deny fundamental infrastructure to someone on the basis of his philosophy or point of view. That's what a free s…

They are welcome to buy their own servers or even rent them. We don't have to subsidize their free use of internet resources.

You say that, but it's a well trodden argument.

> We don't have to subsidize their free use of internet resources.

We subsidize the FAANG's use of internet resources; the Internet was largely originally created with public money (military, academia, etc).

> They are welcome to buy their own servers or even rent them.

Are they? What if they get banned from there? What if they can't collect money from their community, because all the donation sites ban them? What if their donation sites are killed because all the payment processors drop them?

Your argument leads to the logical end of "they're welcome to make their own internet".

What happens when something you like to discuss falls into the category of hate speech? You think it couldn't happen, but plenty of topics that were totally reasonable subjects of discussion, plenty of totally reasonable publicly-held opinions from 20 years ago are now in this basket. It's totally plausible to imagine some newer topic you feel strongly about eventually becoming so, and you ending up on the side of wanting to have honest discussion about it and being locked out.

Can't imagine it happening to you? Well, maybe you don't like pedophilia, or the huge push of incest porn that seems to be everywhere. Maybe you have legitimate, non-racially-oriented concerns about the riots around the country? Maybe you're worried about some particular changes coming to your children's education, or you're worried about the impact of ideas like UBI? Well, your opinions that are acceptable to post in polite places today might not be in 2030.

The only way anyone should be okay with this continual incursion into free speech is if they have truly tied themselves to the idea of being 100% on board with whatever restriction is coming down the pipe next. Such a person has no principles, and it's hard to imagine defending them.

Re: Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store

#222
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of those alternatives seem full of hate speech though

lemmy.ml does moderate content and does not allow hate speech. Once federation is implemented they said they will ban "free speech" instances.

to be clear, I believe they will be defederating from instances that push over content against the flagship instance's ToS; those instances will still be able to run Lemmy software.

Re: Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store

#223

There is probably more than what is being said here otherwise clients for reddit or 4chan would have been removed a long time ago.

yes. husky in particular is a fork of another app called tusky, that internally implemented a login blacklist of explicitly-nazi instances and instances with lolicon content, after the author decided they didn't want those users running their software. husky's explicit sole purpose is to be tusky without that blacklist. tusky has not been removed from the play store.

i'm not familiar with the other apps on the list but i expect it might be some issue like promoting such instances in their registration screen.

also interestingly, the instance OP links to qoto.org is known within the fediverse for being full of creepers, because they've implemented a partial defederation and block circumvention. if you have an account on qoto.org, you can follow users who've blocked you, on instances that have blocked you, because it will recognize such, pull a list of posts via RSS instead of via activitypub, and fake an activitypub actor internally to generate posts for your feed. in their defense they have said that the posts are public anyway, and the user could just browse the public feed with a web browser, but it's clearly a bit different when posts from a person who has tried to block you appear in your feed normally as an item you can interact with. it's certainly against the spirit of consent.

Re: Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there is. This happens all the time--recently, a podcast app was removed from the Play Store because it could be used to listen to content which didn't meet Play Store guidelines. The only way to fix it is to post about it and generate enough outrage that Google hears about it and can undo the ban.

A better fix is barring by law tech companies that control important platforms from using those platforms to censor legal speech. It simply should be illegal for Google to down an app because it contains legal words that blaspheme against Google's California values.

This is workable, there's already cutouts for "private" property that serves an important public function like a town square or a mall.

Re: Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store

#226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The is what I believe is the goal of placing restrictions on people based on “mental health”. It’s so open ended and not easily verifiable that it becomes a sliding scale.

If I'm understanding you right, the idea is that some harms, physical ones, are fair game for the law to cover, but other harms (mental ones) or a collection of boundary cases are less (if at all) within the purview of legislation. I think there's a good conversation to be had as to what in particular makes physical harms so special as compared to others, and how existing law in every country (including the US) can c…

Specifically, I’m concerned about government placing restrictions on individuals based on their mental health history.

What is the process to dispute it? You can’t just take a blood test to say this isn’t really a problem.

Re: Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store

#227
post #54

Does anyone know the US case law on the 1st amendment being applied to corporate actors? I see the argument often that things like this are a free speech violation but the 1st amendment says “Congress shall pass no law...”. It doesn’t apply to actors other than the state. I’m not defending Google’s actions here but I also don’t think it’s technically a free speech violation at least as the amendment is written, so I’…

There's the first amendment and there's the concept of free speech. This absolutely violates free speech but does not violate the first amendment. The only current framework to protect freedom of speech from private companies is to designate them as common carriers, e.g. phone companies legally cannot police what is said over their wires.

I don't think it's necessarily anti-free-speech. The idea of free speech is that everyone should be able to express their opinions without being prosecuted for it, not that everyone is entitled to a platform for those opinions. You should be able to write an article about absolutely anything, but you're not entitled to put it in my newspaper.

I of course agree that the mastodon ban is a bad move because it sets a double standard where browsers can access arbitrary web content but other apps can't, and because it grossly limits the things that the average user can do with their device. However, these are consumer rights issues, not free speech issues.

Re: Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store

#228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historic revisionism as an subgroup of hate speech is a prime example of slippery slope and moving of definition. I would add "fake news" to hate speech.

sorry I have no idea what you're trying to say. Holocaust denial is generally considered to be both historical revisionism and hate speech, the former being a tool for the latter. Is this just semantics?

Out of context is the favorite goto for most news orgs that want to push a particular set of ideals.

Re: Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store

#230
post #206

> Like hate speech is bad and it’s not censorship if it’s not mandated by the government. To be fully accurate, this is absolutely censorship , but it's not a violation of anyone's First Amendment rights. People often conflate the two. We can argue about whether or not Google should ban certain opinions on their platform, or where the line should be drawn, but it is arguable that hey have the legal right to do so. An…

That's a clever trick. Make the medium you want to censor a private property than it's legal.

I doubt the US Government has any hand in this, other than not wanting to be the ones running social media.
Post reply on HN