51–60 of 255 posts
If they ban a client for the content it can access, why don't they ban web browsers entirely ? Google Chrome allows access to illegal and hateful content too.
Kinda ironic seeing Google Play's post today about " Boosting developer success on Google Play " [0] with quotes like " Helping developers build sustainable businesses ", except that your business can be gone at any moment based on the whim of some Google employee or automated algorithm. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26486737
You wouldn't build your brick and mortar store on a contract that allowed the landlord to kick you out at a whim without compensation.
You know what I am going to say... Google Play is owned by Google and is a private platform. They can remove, ban, suspend any app or app update they want when it breaks their policies. That is tough.
I'm sorry but what you are saying is pure ignorance. I consider myself also a libertarian to a certain degree, but in these kind of situations it is completely irrational to let these platforms behave however they want, regardless of the consequences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is that Mastodon and other libre platforms mantra is not to ensure that everyone express themselves, but that everyone can do so. I am, personally, totally fine with that: I don't wish to have ideas I hold in contempt sneak into my feed. But the key difference with “dictator companies” is that I decide what I don't see and whom I enclose with.
> But the key difference with “dictator companies” is that I decide what I don't see and whom I enclose with. But you don't. The app decides for you and blocks what you shall not see.
The problem is when there's no alternative because the platform owner blocks you.
A variation of the CutiePi or PinePhone could do it. It's time for normal people to compartmentalize their tech the way hackers traditionally have.
If they ban a client for the content it can access, why don't they ban web browsers entirely ? Google Chrome allows access to illegal and hateful content too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, when signing up for the app, how do I know what's being done with any personal information that's being collected?
You don't sign up "for the app." The app speaks a standard protocol and you sign up on an external service (like qoto.org or mstdn.social.)
And, separately, how do I know whether the app collects personal information itself (it's effectively in the transmission path between me and the external service) and where it transmits it if it does?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is that Mastodon and other libre platforms mantra is not to ensure that everyone express themselves, but that everyone can do so. I am, personally, totally fine with that: I don't wish to have ideas I hold in contempt sneak into my feed. But the key difference with “dictator companies” is that I decide what I don't see and whom I enclose with.
> But the key difference with “dictator companies” is that I decide what I don't see and whom I enclose with. But you don't. The app decides for you and blocks what you shall not see.
The protocol is open, so you could even write your own app, or if you lack the skills or time to do so, commission somebody else to write one and nobody can stop you.
In contrast, the siloed "dictator companies" control API/protocol access so it's almost impossible to develop alternative applications.
Sadly I am quite sure my app [1] will eventually be removed from the play store as well if it ever becomes popular with the "wrong crowd". All it does is provide a way to connect to peertube (also fediverse like Mastodon) instances and watch videos. Which instance you follow is up to you not me. Content is moderated by the peertube instance owners not me and I am not going to bother adding an instance blacklist for s…
Don't show a directory of instances in your app.
This way casual app reviewers would see the family safe content, and you wouldn't have to block anything.
Or would Google complain about that too?