OP here, let me know if anyone has any questions I can help with, I'm the one who made the post this is linking to.
Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store
591–600 of 996 posts
Re: Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store
#592So did anyone build a twitter-over-bitcoin microblogging platform yet? That would be pretty hard to censor.
I could see that backfiring pretty badly. Just think of all the politicians who want to regulate (or even try to ban citizens from using Bitcoin) being able to say it's chock full of 'Hate Speech'.
It's hard to ban at this point - they could limit cashing out options, but the blockchain itself will live on as long as there are some places in the world where you can cash out.
Re: Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store
#593The 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.
> 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. Do the apps connect by default to a server that allows hate speech? If that's the case, is this an instance of bad defaults? Maybe the apps could work around this by just connecting to a server that's moderated to be acceptable to Google, but leave…
No. You need to explicitly connect in most fediverse apps. They're like browsers
Re: Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store
#594Earlier 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"?
One thing is free speech, another thing is hate speech.
You can't have anti-semitic, racist, homophobic speech without breaking some laws
Re: Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store
#595Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 b…
How did that shift in attitudes about obscenity happen?
Re: Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store
#596It 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.
Censorship always starts with unpopular speech. Historically it's been raunchy porn, religious blasphemy, and direct opposition to the state. Hate speech seems to be a new one that works well to sell censorship to liberals (who should know better).
This is only "censorship" in the sense that Fox News censors me by not giving me a 5 minute slot to advocate for Medicare For All.
In reality, it's not state sponsored censorship at all, and it doesn't lead down any slippery slope.
These claims of censorship are extremely selectively applied, to only certain types of political speech. I wonder why that is?
Re: Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store
#597Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 Fir…
Countries in Europe have some pretty huge restictions on speech that go far behind things like making death threats and fraud illegal.
Even the line that you quoted demonstrates this when it says things like "for the protection of morals".
I really do not want the government infringing on speech rights, due to something as overly broad as "morals".
Re: Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store
#598Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok. But when you start denying basic infrastructure to those with viewpoints you dislike --- domain names, DDOS protection, app store distribution --- you're no longer trying to just maintain some particular community's culture, but instead eradicate certain speech from public life. It should be illegal to deny fundamental infrastructure to someone on the basis of his philosophy or point of view. That's what a free s…
They are welcome to buy their own servers or even rent them. We don't have to subsidize their free use of internet resources.
And they're welcome to build their own anti-DDOS infrastructure.
And their own app stores.
And their own apps.
And their own domain name registrars.
And their own payment processors.
Re: Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store
#599It 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…
As an Austrian, while I have absolutely no sympathy for our local Neo-Nazi groups and far-right Parties, I would personally see the Widerbetätigungsgesetz to be repealed as soon as possible. While it might be true that most people who have been affected by this law were actually far-right bigots, it is still scary to me that my government is able and willing to prosecute based on opinion and speech.
Maybe a tolerable law could be modelled using some concept of truth (eg. I think the Nazis were great vs. The Holocaust did not happen), but I am unsure how that could reasonably be applied when talking about contemporary affairs.
Re: Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store
#600Earlier 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…
"Any service that guarantees no censorship is going to have the majority of its userbase be the runoff from other major websites"
Exactly, which is why you are wrong here:
"When voat was created, I 100% believed that they were not attempting to create extremist havens"
It is not as if the major websites are quick to censor their users. If anything they are too cautious and have only banned terrorists after widespread pressure and threats of advertiser boycotts. If you set up a platform that is open to the few people who were so extreme that even Reddit or Twitter banned them, then you are creating an extremist haven, no matter what language you use to describe your intentions.