Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store • Hacker News Board

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

#421

Post by TeMPOraL » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 4:41 PM UTC

jwalgenbach wrote: post #402

kbenson wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, not so much. The difference is in the legal definition of protected class. It is illegal to discriminate against someone based on their membership of a protected class -- ethnicity or disability for instance. Removing an opinion or banning a user based on violation of an agreed upon term of service is not the same thing. Having an opinion does not make you a member of a protected class, and a private corporatio…

I feel that the goalposts here have been shot out into space and are orbiting the barycenter where the point is.

Let's maybe spell out separately whether or not these two situations are equivalent or not a) legally, b) ethically, c) in principle.

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

#422

Post by csomar » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 4:42 PM UTC

gilrain wrote: post #92

grahoho wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A reminder that F-Droid banned Gab from their store. https://reclaimthenet.org/f-droid-bans-gab-app/

A reminder that Gab is not a gray area edgecase, but a purpose-built platform for conspiracies and hate speech.

Isn't that why F-Droid was created for in the first place?

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

#423

Post by DenisM » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 4:42 PM UTC

So did anyone build a twitter-over-bitcoin microblogging platform yet? That would be pretty hard to censor.

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

#424

Post by dmix » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 4:42 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #341

IntelMiner wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No one is forcing Google or their employees to write hate speech on a cake or an app though, that's a pretty massive difference in analogies. Nor are people asking for a free-for-all where Google can't delete any speech on their platforms.

People were fine when they were deleting spam and had a limited content restriction policies against things like directly promoting violence or posting gore/cp and other obvious tier stuff.

I haven't heard many people pushing for governments to force Google et al to not be able to delete things from their platforms either - outside of some tiny fringes who don't understand how the internet works.

Which is therefore still consistently pro-freedom. Likewise compelled speech + censorship of an arbitrary and ever expanding list of wrongthink is consistently authoritarian.

I really don't see the contradiction in either of these worldviews.

It's the classic centralized top-down puppet-mastery of individuals choices vs embracing the chaos of freedom of individual choice (within some limited boundaries). This battle has been waged for as long as society has been around and is a natural side-effect of power structures.

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

#425

Post by oehpr » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 4:42 PM UTC

KirinDave wrote: post #358

oehpr wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Gab bans people openly and credulously discussing marxism. I have experimented with and experienced this directly. So, it fails my litmus test for "an uncensored platform." And it's a bit comical, because Gab as a community experience is much smaller (in my perspective) from even weird sites like minds or funky social blockchain plays. Why they felt the need to ban discusions of marxism or a general strike is beyond…

Fair. By my own admission, I don't know much about gab.

I think the first time I ever heard about it was when Firefox banned Dissenter from their addons. Dissenter to me was a genius idea that has an ugly userbase. I'd love to have a version of Dissenter that isn't populated entirely by bigots.

I think the idea of Dissenter really has some value, you walk along the web for all sorts of reasons, and then up in the corner in your toolbar you see "oh, someone from my community has said something about this". Rather than the social network taking you to a site, the site takes you to the network.

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

#426

Post by jf22 » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 4:43 PM UTC

john_moscow wrote: post #297

viro wrote: post #91

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…

A lot of countries only said they were trying for "equal outcomes" while rather openly being authoritarian states.

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

#427

Post by Loughla » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 4:44 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #339

IntelMiner wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An electricity company is a utility however. They're a natural monopoly in a way that a "website" can't be If [large social media platform] doesn't want that kind of content, it's not unreasonable to simply make one to soak up that "ignored" market segment. Reddit can't shut you down for hosting your own internet forum for instance

Interestingly, L.A.’s mayor has threatened as well as executed water service disruption to people hosting large parties. I get why one might want to do that, but I don’t think it’s the right precedent to set.

>but I don’t think it’s the right precedent to set.

I've thought about this statement for about a half hour now. What does it mean? That punishing individuals for ignoring public health mandates is a precedent we don't want? Or is it just the 'utility' being used that is problematic for you?

I don't get it.

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

#428

Post by mynameismonkey » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 4:44 PM UTC

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #146

newacct583 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't remove Podcast Addict, it's right here: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bambuna.po... That was a mistake, presumably. It's likely this is too. The deep desire on the part of posters here to assume malice and scream CENSORSHIP is really off-putting. I actually don't know anything about fediverse, but if it's like other pseudoanonymous obscure communications media it's probably filled with…

The only reason Podcast Addict has been restored (multiple times) is that it's high-profile, and the owner raised enough stink to cause widespread (enough) outrage about this. Otherwise, whether through malice or incompetence, it would be gone forever.

>The only reason Podcast Addict has been restored (multiple times) is that it's high-profile, and the owner raised enough stink to cause widespread (enough) outrage about this. Otherwise, whether through malice or incompetence, it would be gone forever.

This is my concern. These apps are not content hosts, they are akin to Web browsers or RSS readers, but they are small, one-person endeavours that don't have the clout to get Google to notice the difference between the content providers (the individual Mastodon servers) and the ActivityPub client app that these apps represent.

I know one of the devs is thinking to not push the issue as he's worried about his other apps on the same developer account.

The discussion has veered off into censorship issues, but this is a simple 230-ish problem, these apps are not the Mastodon servers that (presumably) some people have had issues with. They are agnostic client readers of the ActivityPub statuses.

There is no way, nor any legal requirement, for a browser like these apps to be held responsible for the million possible bits of content it could consume.

The app is not the service.

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

#429

Post by reificator » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 4:45 PM UTC

valvar wrote: post #177

mc32 wrote: 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.

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…

> Of course, everyone agrees that hate speech is bad

As an extreme example: Do you really think the KKK believe hate speech is bad? Even if they do agree, do you think their definition looks anything like your own?

I find it hard to believe that someone who has lived through the last four years can say with a straight face that everyone agrees hate speech is bad. One would think the last US election cycle would have gone differently if that premise were true.

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

#430

Post by claudiawerner » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 4:45 PM UTC

travisoneill1 wrote: post #412

claudiawerner wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You can prove physical harm beyond a reasonable doubt. Mental harm is frequently concocted as a bullying tactic, e.g. the recent NY Times editorial controversy where employees said running an editorial they disagreed with made them "feel unsafe." https://www.npr.org/2020/06/08/871817721/head-of-new-york-ti...

I don't see this as an argument against such legislation; consider that many physical crimes are also hard (or even impossible) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, considered case-by-case. Rape very often qualifies here, as does the mens rea of various other crimes, which may rely upon testimony. Both actus reus and mens rea are required for a conviction, and while the actus reus may be easier to prove (but again, in many cases not beyond a reasonable doubt), we do not abolish the role of intention in the justice system simply because it's hard to prove.

Accusations of physical harms can also be concocted as bullying tactics too, in which the harm was suffered as a result of either a self-inflicted injury, or inflicted by somebody else. Such cases can be thrown out due to insufficient evidence. I see no reason why the same cannot be said for a subset of mental harms, in which there are equivalent doctors available to use their expertise to judge the harm.