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

791–800 of 996 posts

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

#791

Post by [deleted] »

jimbokun wrote: post #759
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…

"but it's not a violation of anyone's First Amendment rights." True. But while technically correct, it is becoming a more and more academic distinction. Facebook-Apple-Google-Twitter, and maybe a few other tech behemoths, probably have greater ability to censor people and content than most governments throughout history. It's also true, in theory, democratically elected governments could reign them in. But it's also…

[deleted]

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

#792

Post by RonanTheGrey »

chapium wrote: post #449
vorpalhex wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reddit recently dramatically revised their moderation policy and has generally been banning a lot of subs. Reddit very much wants to be a profitable business, and has no problem elimiting non-profitable subreddits. "When your content is too cancerous for church, maybe the issue isn't the church". Feel free to replace church with whatever is appropriate to your situation, but there have always been censors and there w…

Even so, OP still has a point. Reddit is pretty lenient as far as content is concerned.

This is a tricky problem even to define, because there's "Reddit" which is the owners and paid moderators, then there is "reddit" which is the universe of its subreddits and its unpaid, unaccountable moderators.

For example, it's been well known for awhile that if you subscribe to any of the men's rights subs, you are auto-banned from several of the feminism ones (including TwoXChromosomes). That kind of thing certainly isn't lenient but also isn't under Reddit's control.

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

#793

Post by [deleted] »

mc32 wrote: post #637
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is interesting that you say that. In English, we do use phrases like "X was destroyed by Z" ( I forget the exact idiom, but kids seem to be using it -- god I feel old ), where no actual destruction beyond verbal attack took place. I know you were referring to something else, but it got me thinking that we are already using the phrase. Our legal system just does not allow a lot of 'word damage' to be adjudicated.

There was also “sticks and stones may break my bones but words can’t hurt me” that now seems in practice to have gone by the wayside.

[deleted]

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

#794

Post by a1369209993 »

avivo wrote: post #643
rektide wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This justification still implies Chrome & Firefox also ought be content aware & be censorship machines. This is grossly unacceptable. Apps need some safe harbor too. Apps can not be responsible for every possible use of the app.

I'm not sure what you mean by justification. I think I simply lay out some context and a set of conflicting perspectives. That said, if you don't want Chrome and Firefox to be content aware, then you should argue that safe browsing should be eliminated from Firefox and Chrome. That is a self consistent position, but it may not be consistent with e.g. avoiding dramatic growth in botnets, ransomware, organized crime et…

Actual safe browsing comes from content-unaware tools like NoScript. And yes, I did spend half a hour going through about:config and neutering everything related to 'Safe' Browsing(R)TM(C)LLC.

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

#795

Post by birdboy2000 »

bastardoperator wrote: post #758
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…

We don't even have to argue about it. Folks agree to a legal binding contract that can likely be altered at any time for any reason and I'm willing to bet verbiage about yanking apps for any reason is well defined too. Decided to look, pretty clear. "Google may make changes to this Agreement at any time with notice to Developer" and "Google may terminate this Agreement with You immediately upon written notice"

Corporate monopolies can easily force one-sided contracts on users, but that's just a reflection of their market power. In a perfect world judges would rule them unenforceable, in our world corporations fund the people who appoint judges.

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

#796

Post by RonanTheGrey »

baddox wrote: post #789
RonanTheGrey wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That interpretation is entirely too generous. That expression "Silence is Violence" is explicitly intended to compel speech and its clear meaning is that if you don't, you are contributing to the violence against minorities. https://twitter.com/KunkleFredrick/status/129834428507983872... This is not an extreme example. The expression has always been used (at least in the current climate) to mean, you agree with us, v…

That example is a crowd intimidating people with the intent to compel speech, of course, and they’re using the slogan “silence is violence.” But those are two different things. You could pick any slogan you want and have a mob recite it while intimidating people into agreeing. That’s not an indictment of the slogan.

That would start the discussion of "when does an example become the standard" which I don't really want to go into. Suffice it to say I do not watch the news, I very rarely visit Twitter and do not follow anyone, and that is the only way I have ever seen that expression used - in the news, on Medium, on FB, on anywhere, when I've come across it. "Agree with us or you are violent."

I don't think there's a generous way to interpret that expression. Silence is de facto not violence. Violence requires physical action.

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

#797

Post by outoftheabyss »

stusmall wrote: post #528
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…

>I'm not deeply versed in Gab's history... Maybe that's a sign you should pause. Sometimes it is okay to admit you don't know about a subject. It is okay to sit and listen instead of voicing an opinion.

His point stands... and actually contributes to the conversation

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

#798

Post by AnthonyMouse »

IntelMiner wrote: post #314
Aerroon wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Size (importance) of the company. Can your electricity company disconnect you because they don't like what you're saying online using that electricity?

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

> 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

This is true enough for Reddit. It's far less true of the Play Store, because the platform (controlled by the same people as the store) throws up scary warnings if you try to install any other store so that almost nobody uses them, and on the only other major phone platform third party stores are prohibited outright. Which means to get your users to follow you, you don't just have to get them to visit a different website, you have to get them to replace their phone with one from a different hardware vendor, switch operating systems, and replace all of their other apps -- if that's even possible for them.

And what when the only two platforms both do the same thing? It's obviously not feasible for an individual app developer to create their own phone platform and hardware and get everyone to switch to it.

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

#799

Post by munificent »

gruez wrote: post #677
munificent wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 acc…

but does gab use "algorithms and ML" to determine what gets shown? Doesn't it use a upvote/downvote model like hn or reddit? Is a site that uses a "order by upvotes" ranking system closer to the first print shop or the second? What about bulletin boards that ranks by last post?

> Doesn't it use a upvote/downvote model like hn or reddit?

Is that really any different? If your print shop counts the user-submitted tallies on a chalkboard to decide which pamphlets to print, the print shop is still choosing to use that rule to decide what to print.

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

#800

Post by ryandrake »

betterunix2 wrote: post #600
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…

"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…

One could argue that intentions don't really matter, ether. "The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does" [1]. If your system ends up being a forum for a certain type of posts, then that's kind of what it is, regardless of what you originally wanted it to be.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...

Post reply on HN