Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Play store bans polyamory dating app

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 191 posts

Re: Google Play store bans polyamory dating app

#21

Post by lurquer »

cthalupa wrote: post #16
jsilence wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 unconscio…

I agree.

For some time, I’ve been troubled by the name of this site as well, as it brings to mind the notorious insurrectionist, Samuel Hacker, of the Confederate 3rd Tennessee Regiment.

I’d like to think naming the site after that racist was accidental.

But, adding in “News” after his name — (pronounce similarly to “noose”) — must make many people very uncomfortable.

Re: Google Play store bans polyamory dating app

#22

Post by jsilence »

cthalupa wrote: post #16
jsilence wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 unconscio…

I have never argued that we have used the term whiteliste or blacklist for a long time.

What I am arguing against is that the author of the comment suggests in a passive aggressive way that the above commenter using the term whitelist is somewhat backwoodish while the majority of society ('we') has progressed to a preferable wording. This is simply not true and it is offensive.

Completely independant from the discourse whether the proposed change of wording makes sense or is of any benefit I refuse to stand by when self-righteous people try to over generalise and try to force their point of view onto 'us'.

Language does not change by dictating the change or by forcing it onto others by derogating them, as has happened in this example ('we use the better word, you are so backwards').

Language is a convention that gradually changes through a process called speaking. If you prefer the terms banlist and allowlist, then by all means use it. It might also be ok to simply state in a polite and unoffensive manner that oneself would prefer these terms. If I hear these terms often enough there is a good chance I'll pick it up. I have zero stake in keeping the terms whitelist or blacklist over the proposed terms banlist and allowlist. All the same to me.

It is simply not ok to offend someone with the intention of enforcing non offensive language to them.

Re: Google Play store bans polyamory dating app

#23

Post by cthalupa »

lurquer wrote: post #21
cthalupa wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 unconscio…

I agree. For some time, I’ve been troubled by the name of this site as well, as it brings to mind the notorious insurrectionist, Samuel Hacker, of the Confederate 3rd Tennessee Regiment. I’d like to think naming the site after that racist was accidental. But, adding in “News” after his name — (pronounce similarly to “noose”) — must make many people very uncomfortable.

While this is a pithy response, even if Samuel Hacker wasn't fictitious, it would still not be a particularly good one.

In the United States alone, there are more than 40 million black people. You do understand the difference between 40+ million English speakers who must hear and see the color of their skin be used in a negative connotation vs. what would be incredibly obscure connotations if it was even true?

Re: Google Play store bans polyamory dating app

#24

Post by path411 »

cthalupa wrote: post #16
jsilence wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 unconscio…

So we can no longer use words that are colors inside of an idiom incase people think you are talking about race? You have to find some kind of line of reasonability. Sure, are there lots of remnants of racism/sexism rooted around our culture. But does that mean just nuke anything that has a color in it?

Heck, you aren't even thinking of the consequences of your actions suddenly turning non racist words into having racist meanings. What do you think will happen post "blacklist" "culture"? You go from 100% of the population using the word "blacklist" with literally 0 race connotations, to maybe 80-90% of the culture using ban or block list, while some 5-10% of the country either keeps saying blacklist or starts using n*ggerlist because you have now added some new racism into the language.

Want some really really recent examples? "Banning" the use of retard, now has everyone calling each other autists. Which is waaaay worse lol

Re: Google Play store bans polyamory dating app

#25

Post by cthalupa »

jsilence wrote: post #22
cthalupa wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 unconscio…

I have never argued that we have used the term whiteliste or blacklist for a long time. What I am arguing against is that the author of the comment suggests in a passive aggressive way that the above commenter using the term whitelist is somewhat backwoodish while the majority of society ('we') has progressed to a preferable wording. This is simply not true and it is offensive. Completely independant from the discour…

I'm not a huge fan of the way it was stated - my response shows how I tend to frame the discussion - but at a certain point you do have to be an activist about other people's usage of language.

While I would not say someone using blacklist or whitelist today is the same as someone using a racial slur, it took people actively admonishing others for using racial slurs to push them further and further out of common use.

I think it is totally fair to say that using them is backwards, and that we should progress to using terms that don't place negative connotations around words that are the color of peoples' skin. I wouldn't say that someone doing something that is backwards makes them as an individual backwards, however - I've got plenty of habits that are backwards. I try to rectify them - sometimes I succeed, sometimes I don't. I don't feel personally attacked by someone commenting on those things when they happen, however, and instead take it as further reinforcement that there's always room for personal growth.

Re: Google Play store bans polyamory dating app

#26

Post by cthalupa »

path411 wrote: post #24
cthalupa wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 unconscio…

So we can no longer use words that are colors inside of an idiom incase people think you are talking about race? You have to find some kind of line of reasonability. Sure, are there lots of remnants of racism/sexism rooted around our culture. But does that mean just nuke anything that has a color in it? Heck, you aren't even thinking of the consequences of your actions suddenly turning non racist words into having ra…

We should likely avoid putting negative connotations to words that correspond with the colors of peoples' skin, yes.

Does every person with black skin care about the use of blacklist or whitelist? Of course not. Do some? Of course.

If some percentage of the country moves to be actively racist in their usage of the word, well, it becomes quite clear who they are, and we've got plenty of other remedies for dealing with them. Everywhere I have ever worked active racism was a terminable offense, and using slurs like that would make it readily apparent who was being actively racist. It becomes a readily apparent red flag for anyone dealing with them.

By no means do I think this sort of change solves all of the issues faced by underprivileged groups in America or around the world, but it's an easy thing to do that can make an incremental improvement in the lives of people that can use it.

Re: Google Play store bans polyamory dating app

#27

Post by joecot »

LinuxBender wrote: post #2

Having never owned a smart phone I am curious if you need an app for this, or could you simply have an old school forum and people visit it on their phones browser? Is that even feasible? Too much friction?

Most apps could really be Progressive Web Apps, using html css and javascript with local caching and storage. Both angular and react can handle running PWAs as do many other frameworks, and it's not rocket science to make a PWA. Even Parler had a PWA people could use when they got pulled from the store.

The problem is that the extra few steps to install a PWA (which is really just a webpage bookmark you put on your home screen plus some local caching) are a lot of friction. The hilarity after Parler got pulled was non techies trying to describe installing a PWA to each other and failing at it.

You also lose a lot of "organic" search results with a PWA. You don't get the app marketplace searching/related results like Google Play or the Apple Store has if you aren't in the marketplace. If you do both marketplace apps and encouraging people to install PWAs instead of your app, that's now less downloads in the app store and therefore lower rankings. It's doable to make a PWA instead of or in addition to an app, and that means you're still a usable service if you get pulled from stores, but it's not straight forward or perfect right now. The push to make Google and Apple let apps stay in their stores is the wrong push -- instead the push should be for more straight forward PWA support.

Re: Google Play store bans polyamory dating app

#28

Post by drannex »

elastolin wrote: post #18
tempaccount2342 wrote: post #10

Blacklist is an out-of-date divisive term. We've moved on to "banlist" and "allowlist" thx.

You are in my blacklist.

HN rule: Don't snark - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

Re: Google Play store bans polyamory dating app

#30

Post by drannex »

NullPrefix wrote: post #5
LinuxBender wrote: post #2

Having never owned a smart phone I am curious if you need an app for this, or could you simply have an old school forum and people visit it on their phones browser? Is that even feasible? Too much friction?

>Having never owned a smart phone I am curious if you need an app for this Yes. No smartphone will make people think you're a creep. /somewhat s

HN rule: Don't snark or shallow dismissals - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

Post reply on HN