801–810 of 996 posts
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse " The Fediverse (a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe") is the ensemble of federated (i.e. interconnected) servers that are used for web publishing (i.e. social networking, microblogging, blogging, or websites) and file hosting, but which, while independently hosted, can communicate with each other. On different servers (instances), users can create so-called identities.…
> 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well said. It's always funny when some acronym no one's heard of shows up unexplained on HN.
Two things: First, don't assume that just because you've never heard a word, that means no one has heard of it. There are quite a lot of us who know what the fediverse is. Second, and this is a little pedantic, fediverse is a portmanteau, not an acronym.
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.
https://twitter.com/KunkleFredrick/status/129834428507983872...
and this
https://twitter.com/rawsmedia/status/1298055028213678082
It's not just a slogan. That is the actual end result of such an ideology.
Silence is not Violence. Silence is the opposite of violence. Silences is stopping, thinking, looking at all the evidence, carefully evaluating and coming up with a sound decision.
This slogan says: "Be outraged immediately without knowing any real facts about the situation"
It's literally DoubleSpeak. You are literally, right now, using DoubleThink.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay come on. This sequence of comments is funny, you have to admit. "Google is censoring apps" "It's because those apps can access hate speech" "You can use this other app store" "They ban this app, though" "But that's because it's for hate speech" Come on, this is peak comedy.
> those apps can access hate speech > it's for hate speech There's a big difference here and you seem to know it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the CCP can do it —and they do it to catch all the circumventions Chinese internet users use to try to avoid censorship —which they do successfully, then we know it’s possible and if it’s possible the big players are doing it too.
The CCP doesn't manage to catch all circumventions, AND they are not a multinational firm crossing multiple jurisdictions. So when we say big players, do you mean FB or do you mean the National Govs? Side note - the CCP also employs manpower to handle the task, so its not just ML, my point hovers on the ML aspect of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A reminder that F-Droid banned Gab from their store. https://reclaimthenet.org/f-droid-bans-gab-app/
They banned the Gab _application_. They didn't ban all microblogging applications that can access Gab. Though, Tusky in particular does. Not all do.
> 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…
It's quite disputable that google even has the right to a platform of anywhere near their current power and influence (waiting for antitrust law to be enforced) and the distinction in any case seems quite artificial when google buys politicians and receives significant public funding and such.