Blacklist is an out-of-date divisive term. We've moved on to "banlist" and "allowlist" thx.
No we have not. And we don't want to, so please stop this. You are free to call it anything you want, but don't tell us how to call it.
Google Play store bans polyamory dating app
11–20 of 191 posts
Re: Google Play store bans polyamory dating app
#12Blacklist is an out-of-date divisive term. We've moved on to "banlist" and "allowlist" thx.
You're making a real difference. A true hero. Well done.
Re: Google Play store bans polyamory dating app
#13Is there not an open APK repository anyone can submit to? It could be a community run endeavor and research project even. We could develop software to detect APKs which exhibit possible malicious behavior and give them scores.
Re: Google Play store bans polyamory dating app
#14Re: Google Play store bans polyamory dating app
#15Is there not an open APK repository anyone can submit to? It could be a community run endeavor and research project even. We could develop software to detect APKs which exhibit possible malicious behavior and give them scores.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but isn't that F-Droid? But that's only for open-source apps.
Re: Google Play store bans polyamory dating app
#16Blacklist is an out-of-date divisive term. We've moved on to "banlist" and "allowlist" thx.
No we have not. And we don't want to, so please stop this. You are free to call it anything you want, but don't tell us how to call it.
What do you have to lose by switching to a term that is more descriptive and less likely to be offensive to someone?
"We've called it that for a long time" isn't really an argument to keep doing it.
For non-native speakers, they have to be familiar with the idiom or it is a meaningless statement, and whether or not the original intent was for it to be related at all to skin color, it can feed in to people's unconscious biases and perceptions.
There is zero downside in moving to block/denylist and allowlist and plenty of upside.
Re: Google Play store bans polyamory dating app
#17This is the dangerous flip side to having two players be the gatekeepers as to what can and cannot be an app (yes, I'm aware on android apps can be installed outside google play technically... but the audience is tiny). With Parler, for example, I remember reading tons of posts in support of taking the app down. But that same process can be easily used to silence apps like these.
Taking down Parler was certainly not justified, but I agree it was one step down the slippery slope that normalizes this kind of brazen gatekeeping on essential public utilities like app stores. Facebook played a much larger role in the planning of the riot at the capitol riots (https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/02/07/shery...) and they faced no consequences, presumably because they share the same political culture as Google and Apple.
It's also a gross overreaction to shut down Parler because the vast majority of people using Parler or supporting Trump did not participate in the riot. Tens of thousands were in DC that day for various rallies and protests, and thousands stayed outside the barricades at the capitol. A few hundred went past them as protesters (rioters?), but committed no additional crimes beyond trespassing, which is the same as past incidents at the capitol like the riots at Brett Kavanaugh hearings (https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/405500-212-protesters-to...). Ultimately only 10 were associated with the Oath Keepers (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/29/us/oath-keepe...).
And on the balance, Parler had 20 million users (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler) and Trump had north of 70 million supporters. It's not justifiable to stop all those people from having a voice. How was it at all justifiable for AOC to demand Parler be shutdown, for tech companies to immediately fall in line by banning the app, and for other companies to also participate in a seemingly coordinated deplatforming effort? It's also chilling to consider that a sitting legislator can call for the shutdown of the speech of private citizens - that amounts to the government coercing bans of speech from private organizations, and is a first amendment violation.
Either way, here we are, in a world where people depend on their mobile phones as utilities, but are serviced by companies that are not regulated as public utilities. They need to either stop being gatekeepers, and act neutrally, or they need to be regulated to enforce that requirement. After all, they are effectively immune to competition.
Re: Google Play store bans polyamory dating app
#18Blacklist is an out-of-date divisive term. We've moved on to "banlist" and "allowlist" thx.
You are in my blacklist.
Re: Google Play store bans polyamory dating app
#19This is the dangerous flip side to having two players be the gatekeepers as to what can and cannot be an app (yes, I'm aware on android apps can be installed outside google play technically... but the audience is tiny). With Parler, for example, I remember reading tons of posts in support of taking the app down. But that same process can be easily used to silence apps like these.
Taking down Parler was certainly not justified, but I agree it was one step down the slippery slope that normalizes this kind of brazen gatekeeping on essential public utilities like app stores. Facebook played a much larger role in the planning of the riot at the capitol riots ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/02/07/shery... ) and they faced no consequences, presumably because they share the same po…
Agreed, it makes zero sense. And AOC is symbol of the decline of the United States.
Re: Google Play store bans polyamory dating app
#20[deleted]