Live data from Hacker News

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

qoto.org

341–350 of 996 posts

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

#341
post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And yet. There's a certain "side" that wants to have that both ways Private companies can't censor "bad opinions" But private companies can also arbitrarily refuse service for say, making a "gay wedding cake" How is this disconnect rationalized?

It's worth noting that there's also a side that wants the opposite of that, to censor bad opinions, but not be able to refuse making a gay wedding cake.

Hypocrites are not limited to specific groups, they're universal.

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

#342
post #95

It always starts like that. People agree to very sensible things. Like hate speech is bad and it’s not censorship if it’s not mandated by the government. Eventually the definition of hate or whatever it is that’s offensive is very removed from the original meaning, and now we all bear the brunt of the sensible people who with best intentions wanted to make things better.

Hanlon's razor has hobbled everyone's ability to see what the establishment is doing. This isn't about good intentions gone wrong. The loss of control of the narrative due to the internet has been a severe setback for the powerful, and they have been slowly clawing it back by limiting access to alternative media.

Various think tanks, NGOs, board members with multiple irons in the fire, foreign interests, and the government itself exert a lot of influence on large players to shut down harmful narratives. Most visible was when the deplatforming activity started with threats from lawmakers against outlets if they didn't remove certain content. You've also got various orgs with CIA connections acting as "fact checkers" on Facebook. The influence happens in subtle and many ways.

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

#344
post #330

> 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…

Google is global. First amendment is purely an american concept. Not really helpful for global content moderation discussions.

They can have and do have regional app stores.

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

#345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of those alternatives seem full of hate speech though

We live in a time of extreme devaluation of terms. The Democratic Republic of Congo is a hardcore dictatorship. The People's Republic of China is run by a close circle of elites. Likewise, "Hate Speech" is used far too often to shut down fairly reasonable criticism against the "equal outcome, not equal opportunity" policies bundled together with original sin and Orwellian struggle sessions.

Places like voat consistently have holocaust denial and calls to actually murder jewish and black people at the very tippy top. There are few places that can be more accurately called "filled with hate speech" than voat.

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

#346
post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't get that logic. Of course, everyone agrees that hate speech is bad (and so are a lot of things, but I digress). But how is it not censorship when one of the world's most powerful companies does it? Do they get a free pass because they are governed by shareholders and make a lot of money? I can see how it's not censorship if Bob does not want people to post things he disagrees with on his cat picture fo…

> everyone agrees that hate speech is bad but does everyone agree on what hate speech is? That's the danger. You can just claim any opinion you don't like is hate speech. You can say endorsing a particular candidate is hate speech and those people can justifiably be censored; their views invalid (and in some places; justifiably killed). It was once considered offensive, in many places a crime, to say homosexuality is…

Does everyone agree on what murder is? Of course not. Does that mean murder should be legal?

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

#347
Excellent - not sure why this racist cancer is spreading so much and so fast across the internet, but any such tumour must be extirpated. If you refuse to police such content because of “free speech” then go back to the 30s, because expressing hatred for people is not an exercise of freedom. There are of course legitimate websites operating on the fediverse but sadly it is also thriving with crime and hatred.

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

#348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shopping Malls can have Sex Shops. Play and AppStore don't allow them.

I have never seen a shopping mall with a sex shop. Maybe lingerie or some novelty items at a Spencer’s, but I doubt mall operators would want to deal with people complaining about their kids walking by a store selling pornography and sex toys. They usually end up in undesirable locations or in rundown strip malls.

The mall down the street from my old apartment had one. It was small and discrete though; I passed it plenty of times before realizing what it was.

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

#349
post #249

> 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…

This definition of censorship is bad and must be changed. Large general-purpose platforms should be forced do distribute all content which is not otherwise illegal, and only perform removal based through the standard legal system.

Why should they be forced to distribute it? That's a pretty extreme stance, and you haven't provided a reason.
Post reply on HN