Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

qoto.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 996 posts

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

#481

Post by jimmaswell »

gerbal wrote: post #237
djsumdog wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually very disturbing considering the amount of misinformation over this incident, and that they're charging that kid for murder! Were you able to find the videos? They tell a pretty different story than the media narrative. Every person he shoots attacked him or had a gun. He doesn't shoot the kid behind them who had his hands up, or any other bystanders. He then walks with his hands up and turns himself i…

It sounds a lot like you are deliberately seeking bias-confirming right wing propaganda!

..by seeking the actual recordings?

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

#482

Post by hkt »

stillbourne wrote: post #245
thomascgalvin wrote: post #169

> 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…

> 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. It's not censorship, its moderation and editorial discretion.

The play store is as near as makes no difference a utility to people with Android phones. Try using one without it.

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

#483

Post by ascorbic »

Retric wrote: post #454
ascorbic wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't "have more freedom in this area": they're not bound by it at all. They can ban whatever they want from their own platforms.

That’s not always true. Ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule While it’s been revoked the FCC fairness doctrine was considered constitutional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lion_Broadcasting_Co._v._F...

Right, I meant they're not bound by the first amendment. There are plenty of other regulations that apply to specific outlets, but they're not rules to protect free speech

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

#484

Post by [deleted] »

Sargos wrote: post #270
jariel wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is the 'App Stores'. Think of them as retail outlets, in a mall. Do you see shady stuff going on there? Would 'The Gap' sell porn to increase profits by 15%? Of course not. And for obvious reasons. We shouldn't think of 'App Stores' as some kind of truly open marketplaces, any more than a shopping mall is. What we need is just more independent means of distribution.

These threads make it obvious that most people would be okay with malls being the only place where shopping is allowed to happen. "Our local mall is great, I don't see a need for any other malls or standalone stores. Malls provide an air conditioned space, on-site site security, and even refreshments while you shop." I think it stems from a lack of empathy for others. I don't buy dildos so I see no reason to allow di…

[deleted]

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

#485

Post by numpad0 »

bumbledraven wrote: post #282
kanox wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s hard to make a free speech site whose content guidelines follow the First Amendment, because the credit card networks will ban you. Gab, for example, can only accept checks and crypto.

ban credit card network ban you by law.

if it can't be done(yes it can't be done) so is forcing platforms be fair(that can't happen as well).

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

#486

Post by retpirato »

colpabar wrote: post #275
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?

doesn't it go both ways? if you flip both positions, it's also inconsistent.

Google removing apps with spam/malware is one thing, & not something people would actually complain about. That also doesn't apply to removing the fediverse apps. They don't contain malware, they're simply alternative social networks. If they're going to remove them for having content they consider inappropriate or whatever excuse they're using, they need to remove other social media apps like facebook & twitter, because they certainly both have plenty of that too. Otherwise it just looks like an attempt to remove competitors to facebook/twitter. I also don't see what this has to do with a business refusing to make a cake. Businesses do have a right to refuse service. In this case if you're going to remove apps claiming they violate a specific violation, but don't remove other apps which will also inevitably be in violation the same way, it's reasonable for people to question it.

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

#487

Post by amanaplanacanal »

Mxs2000 wrote: post #386
krapp wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It should be illegal for a big platform to shut down certain points of view when these points of view are legal and expressed in a normal manner. Platforms aren't public venues, they're private businesses offering access to a service under terms that serve their interests and business needs first and foremost... terms that everyone agreed to before being able to use the platform. >The law gives you a legitimate and…

Given that they are not operating as neutral public venues then they should also not be afforded protection under Section 230. If they actively moderate they should be fully liable.

The very point of section 230 was to protect companies even if they did moderate. What you are suggesting is that section 230 should be repealed, and let the courts sort it all out.

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

#488

Post by simias »

gruez wrote: post #399
snypher wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good start is the Wikipedia page; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)

The line of thinking seems to be: "Gab's target demographic is users that have been banned from the mainstream platforms for hate speech and conspiracies. Therefore by targeting those users, it's 'purpose built' for hate speech and conspiracies.". My question is, can't you apply this to basically anything that's "free speech"? The mechanism seems to be that most people are content with the mainstream platforms, and t…

If your site has been overrun by ultra-far-right types for basically its entire existence and you do nothing to mitigate this then you're very clearly complicit.

But you're right, most of the "no moderation, anything goes" online communities tend to be overrun by extremists but it's easy to see why: you only need a minority of very dedicated trolls posting outrageous content 24/7 to ruin a community. It takes time and effort to post insightful content and analysis, meanwhile you can throw shit at the walls at a large scale very easily.

That's why it's pretty obvious to me that if you want to actually have interesting discussions online and a plurality of opinions you need moderation, otherwise the low effort bullies take over.

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

#489

Post by TeMPOraL »

godelski wrote: post #434
kleer001 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love that aphorism. Unintended consequences. We should teach unintended consequences in grade school, high school, and have advanced degrees in it. How to see them before they explode, how to mediate them, and how to fix them once they're running at full steam. Lately I've been imagining it along with the slowly boiling frog story and the crab-mentality too. As in some people can't tell we're headed to hell because…

There's a hypothesis I came up with awhile ago and it seems to hold pretty true. If we talk about problems as O(n) where n is the causation distance[0] we've solved the vast majority of O(1) and O(0) problems. It makes sense that biologically we would be primed to think in this way because they are decent approximate solutions for small groups. But the world we live in now is much more complex and many events are cou…

I agree, I've been thinking along these lines for a while too; thank you for phrasing it so clearly.

My current thinking led me to conclude that we don't have sufficiently good tools[0] for modelling O(n) problems with n > 2. Particularly when (what your simplification doesn't capture) there are feedback loops involved.

Take this O(2) problem: x causes more y, y causes more z, z causes less y but much more x. Or in a pictorial form:

        (++)
     X
You can't just think your way through that problem, you have to model it - estimate coefficients (even if qualitatively), account for assumptions, and simulate the dynamic behavior.

I argue that we lack both mental and technological tools to cope with this.

Speaking of global warming, a year ago I presented this problem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20480438 - "Will increase in coal exports of Poland increase Poland's CO₂ footprint?" Yes? No? How badly?

The question is at least this complicated:

     Coal exports
          ^
          | [provides Z coal to]
          |
          |     [needs α*X = A kWh for coal]
     Mining coal
(Presented this way it not only tells you that, ceteris paribus, it will, but roughly by how much and what are the parameters that can be tweaked to mitigate it.)

Why aren't we talking about climate change in these terms with general public? Why aren't feedback loops taught in school?

--

[0] - Or, if they exist, they aren't sufficiently well known outside some think tanks or some random academic papers.

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

#490

Post by nybble41 »

nescoiquid wrote: post #360
stinkytaco wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the side effect of allowing a small number of largely unregulated companies to control so much of our communications. TV and radio using public right-of-ways like radio bands are much more tightly regulated to ensure "equal time". That's not the case for social media or mobile platforms and I suspect any attempt to regulate those would be met with a great deal of resistance. Not the least complaint would be that…

The equal time doctrine was eliminated in 1987: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine >> The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC e…

And for good reason. It doesn't make sense to mandate equal time for mainstream and fringe positions, rational proposals and ones riddled with contradictions. Either some government censor is responsible for deciding which positions are "serious" enough to warrant equal time or the media eventually gets overwhelmed with nonsense and conspiracy theories. If you want to see where the "fairness doctrine" leads, just have a look at some of the less discriminating social media sites.
Post reply on HN