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

731–740 of 851 posts

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

#731

Post by john-shaffer »

epistasis wrote: post #553
api wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't watch Fox News, but even I know that Fox invites Democrats on to talk about their opinions. Here is an interview where a BLM leader rants for 5 minutes: https://youtu.be/FTjBJiXalHU?t=59

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

#732

Post by LegitShady »

kube-system wrote: post #604
LegitShady wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you, but the flip side is that they are not liable for the speech on their property due to an exception in section 230 of the communications decency act. If they have shown the ability to control speech on their platforms section 230 should be repealed and Google etc should be responsible for the content on their property like any other publisher.

Section 230 exists because it is operationally impractical for websites to affirmative approve of all, most, or even a significant portion or content before it is published by users. If there's anything that is an indisputable fact, it's that no high-volume platform with user content can proactively police their platform 100%. I think that's a silly rationale to say that they should be prohibited from manually polici…

I never said they should be prohibited from policing content merely that if they are capable of policing content they should be held liable for content on their platform like every other publisher.

There is no reason to give these censorious companies extra legal protections no other publisher has if they are censoring society. They have been protected by a regulation that is now causing intense centralizing of power in the hand of a few technocrats and it is actively harmful to the rest of society to so empower them over everyone else.

It is operationally impractical that society should be subject to Google's whims but Google not liable for Google's network content.

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

#733

Post by querez »

pfraze wrote: post #664
quanticle wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that is true then that suggests that the efforts of the establishment to rein the big social media companies will prove largely ineffective with the result that Facebook, Google, etc, will probably join the New York Times, Harvard, etc, as part of the governing structure of the US. That's exactly what "reining in" looks like. Instead of being an alternative to, e.g. the New York Times and opposing the next Iraq wa…

Manufacturing consent online is dependent on the rules of the game. Russian-bot-syndrome is a fraud issue, in this case a state actor manipulating the 1-person-1-voice assumption of the game. If we're making a marketplace metaphor, then this market is being tilted toward actors with the resources to pay for bots, workers, or influencers. It's not like it's limited to Russia; Bloomberg was somewhat showy during the pr…

> Bloomberg was somewhat showy during the primary about paying people to tweet for him

I'm genuinely curious, do you have any more details or sources on this?

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

#734

Post by thelean12 »

djeiasbsbo wrote: post #641
thelean12 wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have any of the Fediverse apps that were banned from the app store done anything to prevent the issues that you say Facebook and Twitter have? I'll take the simple banning of a harmful server on their app as a way to change my mind on this issue.

They have done exactly that multiple times. For example, the app Tusky has a hardcoded list of hate-speech instances for which the login is blocked, to just give you one example. Other than that, the instances themselves simply choose not to federate with questionable instances. This happens in an almost organic way where if an instance refuses to block federation with another questionable instance, other instances w…

I asked about the apps that were banned from the play store. Tusky is still available on play store. Maybe their hardcoded list of hate-speech instances were enough for Google to keep them on the play store?

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

#735

Post by john-shaffer »

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #247
mc32 wrote: post #95

It 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.

Kindly take this as a devils advocate post before you reflexively downvote. It looks like letting people say anything they want on major social media platforms is only having one major positive effect: a few advertising companies are becoming very rich. The negative effects include: - incited violence (gang-oriented gun crime in Chicago is often fanned by social media posts for example) - bad medical decisions (vacci…

Which powerful, privileged people should get to decide what we are allowed to hear about? When the power is inevitably abused, how can we address that abuse when we may not be allowed to know about it?

Is it even necessary for free speech to directly result in a happier humanity? What if it simply preserves the conditions that we need for progress, or merely keeps us from sliding backwards? Would that be enough to make it worthwhile for you?

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

#736

Post by dang »

mc32 wrote: post #95

It 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.

(We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24305296)

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

#737

Post by nvahalik »

gwbrooks wrote: post #707
dalbasal wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Constitutions are squishy things, ultimately. They evolve over the years. I take your point about legality. But, I'd make the point that we don't have a clear moral or legal concept of free speech that relates to the current world. "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." At s…

> Constitutions are squishy things, ultimately. They evolve over the years. They're really not -- or shouldn't be. Certainly not when you have a textualist/originalist majority on the court charged with deciding what is and isn't constitutional. I get your broader point that societies and norms change. But the last thing any of us should want is a constitution that is lightly referenced and broadly interpreted becaus…

Agree. To extend your argument, we find that over the years that the application of the constitution has to be understood in new contexts. It doesn't evolve, but how it is understood to apply is discussed and what it covers does. That's why textualism/originalism is important: if we understand what someone said and why they said it, we can better represent the intention of the rule here, several hundred years later.

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

#738

Post by dang »

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 detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24305473)

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

#739

Post by cm2187 »

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…

I am sure the local water or electricity company can’t refuse to provide you the service because they don’t like your politics. And the gay wedding cake controversy. Those platforms that operate like a quasi monopoly (search, social network, mobile services, internet service providers) could very well be treated like utility companies or something intermediate with a similar obligation not to use their dominant position to control speech in the country.

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

#740

Post by rvnx »

feanaro wrote: post #725
avivo wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's a bit silly to emphasize specific communities if this results in a ban of the entire app or network. ~all apps and networks have some communities like that. I don't think this is a complex question at all, this is just bad.

The same with Discord or Slack that could be removed, or Facebook
Post reply on HN