371–380 of 996 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should e.g. hate speech be allowed but not spam? Spam is perfectly legal. You’re not actually against lines being drawn through legal speech — you just don’t like where they fall.
> Spam is perfectly legal That's a somewhat bold claim. At minimum, CAN-SPAM makes the worst of it illegal.
The rationale they gave is that hate speech appears on these apps, because some of the microblogging sites that can be accessed via Fediverse have this kind of content. Based on this rationale, I look forward to Google Play removing Chrome, Firefox, and all other web browsers from the store as well.
If this is the Google policy they may want to bake that policy into the way Chrome operates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I go past a mall with a dildo shop inside it on my current walking commute to work. I saw another one of the same chain in the main train station of… I think it was Hannover? I was travelling a lot by InterRail and the places are blurring together. Zürich has (or had) a sex shop with the wares clearly visible from the outside in the expensive bit of the city centre. Cambridge (UK) has an Ann Summers in its main shopp…
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…
Google regardless of it's size is still private, and should be allowed to host who it wants or doesn't, same as you should be forced to host visitors you dont want. Free speech is that they shouldn't be a law by a government to punish expression of ideas or opinions. citizens or companies should be allowed to host and not host whoever they want.
So should ISPs be allowed to not deliver a website (say Netflix's) content to you unless you pay extra?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When your content is too cancerous for Reddit ...maybe the issue isn't Reddit.
Well, I can tell you what's bugging me personally about this. There's a growing divide in our society between the "equal opportunity" and "equal outcome" camps. And while the "equal opportunity" people mostly have the "just let me grill" attitude, "equal outcomers" are pushing increasingly harder, while doing their best to silence any opposing voices. It's now getting to a point where raising one's kids to be proud o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A reminder that Gab is not a gray area edgecase, but a purpose-built platform for conspiracies and hate speech.
I'm not deeply versed in Gab's history... But lets hypothetically say that Gab was not created for that purpose, but for precisely the purpose it claims it was created for: To be an open platform for free speech, no censorship. Wouldn't it have ended up in the exact same state it is now? Any service that guarantees no censorship is going to have the majority of its userbase be the runoff from other major websites. Wh…
You could avoid being large — small, high-trust groups work perfectly fine without censorship.
You could add more moderation (aka censorship), both platform-wide and within communities. Reddit seems to be heading in that direction.
You could avoid being a platform. Some sites are inherently platforms, but does every site need comments?
Or you could genetically engineer humanity into a kinder, better species. This would also be the way to make anarcho-communism work — the economic system with the greatest freedoms, but also the most susceptible to bad actors. The Culture series shows you a glimpse of what this future could be.
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.
When you say that's the only way to fix it, you are literally correct. There is no real ticket or support mechanism, no appeals process, nothing. The fastest way to raise an issue with Google is to email a journalist or hitup your twitter followers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
hate speech is a crime in many european countries too[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country
That’s a non sequitur. What do you mean “too?” What does this have to do with the claim that “it’s not censorship if it’s not mandated by the government”?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alternative repositories are a first-class feature of F-Droid. Alternative app stores aren't really a first class feature of Android (though they are obviously possible, in contrast to iOS) > bans your Android Studio account Don't give them ideas. (there's thankfully no such thing as an Android Studio account)
> there's thankfully no such thing as an Android Studio account I meant Google Account. Isn't a google account necessary for anything on developer.android.com? Sorry if I am wrong. Any url on that domain used to redirect me to a Google Login page. Well, atleast you have to accept a Google TOS.
You have to agree with the TOS if you download the prebuilt SDK from google, yes. Building the SDK from source is unfortunately quite hard but Debian has made some progress with this.
And also maybe revise all those antitrust laws into something actually useful - they're using their (kinda, mostly) monopoly to hinder competition by selectively applying their rules to whever they want and never themselves.