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

541–550 of 996 posts

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

#541

Post by jjcon »

de6u99er wrote: post #181

It needs to be regulated first by law makers to prevent companies applying arbitrary rules and discriminate clients based on subjective/someone's personal preferences. Countries like Austria and Germany have a law called Wiederbetätigungsgesetz which prevents public display of neonationalistic symbolism or speech. I think such a law would be a great starting point for a new law preventing hate speech and discriminati…

I find it hilarious how people here are so proud that Germany is not nationalistic... one might even say their pride borders on... nationalism.

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

#542

Post by just_fred »

jzb wrote: post #525
Retric wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule While it’s been revoked the FCC fairness doctrine was considered constitutional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lion_Broadcasting_Co._v._F...

That's because the airwaves are public, so the FCC could regulate / require equal time in the public interest. A TV or radio station isn't operating entirely on its own dime - it's using a public resource, so it should be done in the public interest. There was no fairness doctrine applied to, say, newspapers.

The internet is a public resource.

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

#543

Post by munificent »

gruez wrote: post #494
simias wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

>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. How do you mitigate without running counter to the original idea of "free speeech"?

It's not at all clear what "the original idea of 'free speech'" even was. In the US, the wording of the First Amendment is quite vague.

I think people have a mental model that social media sites and apps are like a communication medium. They are a neutral carrier that transmits an idea X from person A to B. The site itself is not "tainted" by the content of X or get involved in the choices of A and B.

But a more accurate model is that they are amplifiers and selectors. The algorithms and ML models at the heart of every social media app often determine who B is. A is casting X out into the aether and the site itself uses its own code to select the set of Bs that will receive it—both who they are and how large that set is. From that perspective, I think it is fair that apps take greater responsibility for the content they host.

Here's an analogy that might help:

Consider a typical print shop. You show up with your pamphlet, pay them some money, and they hand you back a stack of copies. Then you go out and distribute them. The print shop doesn't care what your pamphlet says and I think is free from much moral obligation to care.

Now consider a different print shop. You drop off your pamphlet and give them some money. Lots of other people do. Then the print shop itself decides how many copies to make for each pamphlet. Then it also decides itself which street corners to leave which pamphlets on. That sounds an awful lot to me like they have a lot of responsibility over the content of those pamphlets.

The latter is much closer to how most social media apps behave today.

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

#544

Post by skissane »

felipeko wrote: post #252
Retric wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Censorship is allowed under the first amendment on obscenity or national security grounds. Private organizations just have more freedom in this area. EX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_v._Pacifica_Foundation

Is allowed under some interpretation of the first amendment. It is not allowed by the first amendement per se.

The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech is worded as an absolute, there are no exceptions in the text.

However, no functioning society could allow unlimited free speech. There are many exceptions to the First Amendment – fraud, perjury, defamation, death threats, "shouting fire in a crowded theatre", speech in violation of privacy or duties of confidentiality, etc.

I don't think the original authors of the First Amendment meant it to be unlimited. They didn't intend it to legalise fraud or perjury or defamation.

But, given they didn't leave any guidance in the text as to which exceptions are valid and which are not, it is basically up to SCOTUS to decide. And which exceptions SCOTUS accepts as valid change as the moods of its majority changes – and will likely continue to change in the future.

The equivalent provision in the European Convention on Human Rights is Article 10, which says: "The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary".

I think that's better than the First Amendment in that it acknowledges in the text the reality that exceptions are necessary, and makes some attempt to outline what the exceptions are. However, there is still a lot of room for interpretation by the European Court of Human Rights as to the proper scope of all those exceptions, especially regarding what is "necessary in a democratic society" and what isn't. Few would claim the Court always gets it right. But, at least, the European Court of Human Rights is arguably a far less politicised institution that the US Supreme Court.

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

#545

Post by notyourday »

richiebful1 wrote: post #479
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.

Are you saying that a platform (be it Facebook, Twitter, etc.) shouldn't be allowed to moderate content at all if they want safe harbor protections?

Blacklisting apps for content that the app might access is not moderating content on a platform based on a user's request.

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

#546

Post by colordrops »

andi999 wrote: post #396
colordrops wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 gove…

"threats from lawmakers against outlets if they didn't remove certain content." Could you be more specific what that certain content was?

Suspected Russian bots, Alex Jones, Covid misinfo, then there's this sort of thing:

https://theintercept.com/2018/01/03/my-life-as-a-new-york-ti...

https://theintercept.com/2014/09/25/managing-nightmare-cia-m...

https://theintercept.com/2014/09/04/former-l-times-reporter-...

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1097834759181553664?s=...

https://old.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/apu3oz/with_the...

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

#547

Post by dTal »

djsumdog wrote: post #124
gilrain wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

and why does that matter? They later switched to ActivityPub/Mastodon for a bit. They still run a Mastodon fork, but defederated back in May. Gab was also banned explicitly by URL by any app makers and in many ActivityPub libraries (you can find checks where it hashes the URL and compares it to known Gab URLs). > a purpose-built platform for conspiracies and hate speech We're in a bizarre world right now where you ca…

Ah, the delicious irony of attacking certain types of speech and ideas as "attacks on speech and ideas". What they are doing and what you are doing are no different; it's all just politics. There's not even anything new about what's happening today. How do you think people's minds were changed on all those "controversial" topics you cite? A whole lot of social pressure. You don't get to make lofty statements about free speech, and then turn around and grumble that other people's speech somehow isn't "playing fair".

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

#548

Post by karakot »

IntelMiner wrote: post #256
croes wrote: 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?

Being a gay is not a choice, the same way as being a black, a minority etc. Being an asshole is a choice on the other way, the same as being radical left or radical right. The former is protected the latter is not.

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

#549

Post by skissane »

fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #410
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the feds mandate the censoring on a private medium, I don't think it makes it legal FCC regulation of TV broadcast comes close, but apparently obscenity isn't protected under the First Amendment (perhaps you can tell I'm not a lawyer, or for that matter an American). https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-pr...

Yeah, there is this vague idea that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to certain categories of speech (yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater is the classic example) that get stretched to fit this sort of thing.

It's a problem with the drafting – the original authors always meant for there to be exceptions, but decided not to specify explicitly in the text what those exceptions were going to be – thus leaving it up to the courts to decide in practice what exceptions are allowed and what are not.

The obscenity exception was largely non-controversial until the 20th century, because there was a broad societal consensus, among both popular and elite opinion, that obscenity and pornography did not deserve First Amendment protection. It was only in the 20th century that societal consensus broke down, and it was in that context the US Supreme Court decided to reduce the scope of that exception. (It still exists, and is still occasionally enforced.) The original authors and ratifiers of the First Amendment supported laws against obscenity, and didn't believe the First Amendment prohibited them.

Ultimately the courts have to decide what laws mean, even constitutional laws – but they could always have given them more guidance, by being more explicit in the text about which exceptions are valid and which are not

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

#550

Post by mynameismonkey »

avivo wrote: post #506
humanistbot wrote: post #47

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.

This sort of decision by Google does make me rather uncomfortable (the entire situation is uncomfortable... https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/12/20691957/mastodon-decentr... ). But it's worth understanding why the situation may be a bit more complicated than is described above. What seems to be happening is not an absolute ban on Fediverse apps , but a ban on specific implementations that make it easy to join specific…

>but a ban on specific implementations that make it easy to join specific communities which encourage hatred and real-world violence.

As you state, one can access these specific communities in a number of ways, including Google Chrome. If the community is the issue, go after the community, not an ActivityPub app that can access content from these and other communities.

Should Google also ban RSS reader apps that don't actively block RSS feeds from sites Google doesn't like?

Post reply on HN