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

Post by coldacid » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 10:20 PM UTC

djsumdog wrote: post #690

avivo wrote: post #506

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…

Free Speech Extremist. Shitposters Club. No Agenda Social. Lets all love Lain. There are ton of instances which much of the Fediverse blocks, but if you set up your own server and follow people on those instances, it's not 80% hate speech and racism as others would have you believe. Yes there is some of that, but there's also weebs, and anime and political discussion and weird gaming discussion and videos not posted…

Post by joshuamorton » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 10:22 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #851

joshuamorton wrote: post #842

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a subtle distinction though: one is censoring based on the speech, and the other is censoring based on the speaker. The cake example specifically is more subtle (legally), since there's an argument that the cake is custom. I think this gets very tricky legally, but on the broader point, it isn't hypocritical to say censorship based on concept is okay, but based on speaker is not.

> I think this gets very tricky legally, but on the broader point, it isn't hypocritical to say censorship based on concept is okay, but based on speaker is not. I don't know. I think that depends on how acceptable you think it is to censor based on the Islamic religion, or the idea of homosexuality, even if you think censoring Muslims and homosexuality is not. At what point does censoring discussing about homosexual…

Post by bluthru » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 10:24 PM UTC

rightbyte wrote: post #144

Barrin92 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It always starts like that. many places have cultures and also law that for decades has worked perfectly fine reigning in the very worst forms of hate speeech (say holocaust denial in my country) while not descending into a sort of activism that starts to get silly. There's no automatic mechanism that turns sensible rules into insensible ones, and it's also need not be the case with sensible hate speech rules. With…

Historic revisionism as an subgroup of hate speech is a prime example of slippery slope and moving of definition. I would add "fake news" to hate speech.

Post by coldacid » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 10:25 PM UTC

egypturnash wrote: post #860

Fellshard wrote: post #830

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This much is key to observe: this isn't a partisan maneuver by Google, as much as people may want to slot it into that. It smells much more like a control maneuver: a perceived competitor.

A competitor to what? G+?

Post by coldacid » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 10:27 PM UTC

mfer wrote: post #372

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.

Or, might Chrome start censoring... If this is the Google policy they may want to bake that policy into the way Chrome operates.