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

Post by est31 » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 3:59 PM UTC

djsumdog wrote: post #218

Some Fediverse apps have ban lists within them for certain instances. This has been hugely controversial in Fediverse community, to the point where some apps that fork apps with ban lists and republish them without those ban lists, sometimes get removed from F-Droid! You can't just keep banning Fediverse instances. It's like banning websites. So what is this going to mean? Approved instances. Here's a list of 200 ins…

Post by icebraining » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 3:59 PM UTC

ziddoap wrote: post #185

quotemstr wrote: post #150

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…

You're arguing a point that the parent poster never made. The parent poster simply said that they want to join communities free of (or, mostly free of) hate speech and that being free/mostly free of hate speech is an attractive quality for them. Not once did they advocate for denying infrastructure or any of the other things your entire comment is based on. In fact, they stated the opposite.

Post by drdeca » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 4:00 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #266

drdeca wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a difference between “has some of it” and “is full of it”. As SSC says, even if witch hunts are genuinely bad, if you found a town with the founding principle of having no witch hunts, you will end up with a town with 5 genuine civil libertarians, and 100 witches. I think an interesting strategy would be to found a site with an initially high level of censorship, but a public commitment to reduce the amount/d…

Unless there's a limitless supply of witches somewhere, the more witch-hunt-free towns there are, the more the witches will be distributed among those towns, because witches aren't a homogeneous group either. So in theory, voat & co should either shrink or get less radical the more reddit-alternatives there are. That is, unless reddit is turning normal people into witches that will then populate the new alternative p…

Post by icebraining » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 4:01 PM UTC

michaelt wrote: post #242

MyNameIsMyName wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Censorship not related to government always strikes me as just complaining. Private entities, whether they be individuals or businesses should be free to determine what is an acceptable uses of their services, and what is not. Do you allow any form of speech in your house or is your house a platform that censors speech?

I think this specific case is a bit different, as Google sold the house (i.e. phone) to me, yet they want to retain control as if they were the owner.

Post by kikokikokiko » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 4:02 PM UTC

antoinealb wrote: post #296

notyourday wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great. Google should become liable for all the illegal content that slips through, all the way to the officers and directors of the company. I think we as the society agree that child porn and child sexual abuse is a criminally punishable offense. A platform in a possession of it clearly is in a possession and distribution of child pornography, hence officers and directors should be charged under those statues.

Isn't that why we have safe harbor laws to encourage platforms to self regulate and collaborate with law enforcement in exchange for not being sued for those violations ? Without those provisions no website could allow user created content, as they would instantly be sued to oblivion. (Standard disclaimer of working for Google)