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

Tusky has been removed from the Play Store

chaos.social

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 255 posts

Re: Tusky has been removed from the Play Store

#111

Post by jakelazaroff »

syshum wrote: post #91
jakelazaroff wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I build something, I alone get to decide what my labor enables and what it does not. If you disagree with my choices, you’re free to use a tool built by someone whose values better align with yours.

That is fine, just do not market it as a "Free Speech" service / tool / platform like the fediverse try's to do. The entire marketing of the fediverse software is freedom from censorship. if you want to build "Authoritarianverse" and place yourself as emperor for life, then you are free do to do just be open with your marketing so people know to avoid your software

I don’t actually think that’s accurate. I don’t see the term “free speech” or any obvious variation on https://tusky.app or even on https://joinmastodon.org.

As I understand it, their main goal is escaping corporate control, and any freedom from censorship they provide is incidental.

See too Mastodon’s “server covenant”, which seeks to quarantine instances that allow hateful content: https://joinmastodon.org/covenant

Re: Tusky has been removed from the Play Store

#112

Post by silon42 »

ethbr0 wrote: post #93
skohan wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is one of the great unsolved problems of our time. Apple, Google and Amazon (ok and Azure too I guess) are effectively gatekeepers in terms of what products are allowed to exist online. And during the pandemic this is especially relevant, because for a great many people online life is public life for all intents and purposes. I think almost everyone would agree that a handful of unaccountable corporation…

Parent pointed out a good starting place: in the physical world, we've evolved minimum property and contractual rights that cannot be waived. In the digital world we have... binding arbitration clauses in terms & conditions of use.

IMO, eventually this will revert, when lawyers (and judges) realize DRM makes many of them redundant.

Re: Tusky has been removed from the Play Store

#113

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

userbinator wrote: post #102

This brave new era of censorship is going to have some really horrible long-term effects that are not so apparent yet to its proponents. The echo-chambers and divisiveness will only get stronger as the edges slowly get squeezed out of the population. "I don't agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

This new era of censorship is a reaction to the now obvious long-term effects of lack of censorship. As with most reactions it will probably swing too far the other way for a while.

Re: Tusky has been removed from the Play Store

#114

Post by judge2020 »

sschueller wrote: post #70
yarcob wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if these problems could be fixed by showing only a list of family safe instances by default, but allow adding custom urls somewhere in the settings. 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?

The default instance is mine and I follow almost no one, trying to keep that "family safe". But it looks like I need to also make sure it's "politically safe". The instance list is the official list provided by Peertube. I believe the goal is to make that list decentralised and self-filling as it should be. The NSFW filter is on per default. BTW, Google blocked an update not long ago because of a typo in my descripti…

'family safe' and 'politically safe' aren't much different in the fact that they're arbitrary filters on what is shown in the app by default. Start out with just a url box for 'connect to a PeerTube instance' and you don't have to worry about either.

Re: Tusky has been removed from the Play Store

#115

Post by DocTomoe »

cbradford wrote: post #110
arnaudsm wrote: post #45

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.

They will do this. Firefox is starting with their extensions to block content that the devs are biased against. Very soon only web browsers that censor to their bias will be allowed in the play store.

Huh? Do you have some more information on the Firefox bias blocking?

Re: Tusky has been removed from the Play Store

#116

Post by oblio »

cbradford wrote: post #108
skohan wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is one of the great unsolved problems of our time. Apple, Google and Amazon (ok and Azure too I guess) are effectively gatekeepers in terms of what products are allowed to exist online. And during the pandemic this is especially relevant, because for a great many people online life is public life for all intents and purposes. I think almost everyone would agree that a handful of unaccountable corporation…

There is a framework for this that was created over 100 years ago when the same problem happened with railroads. They did they same thing and used their monopoly power to discriminate on who could ship goods by rail. Society said that was wrong and we have the idea of a common carrier that must treat all customers the same. We should declare all app stores to be the same, common carries that may not discriminate. Bot…

We'll need a legal framework for removing apps in this case.

Re: Tusky has been removed from the Play Store

#117

Post by soundnote »

nargek wrote: post #47
derpthebert wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

f-droid banned Gab. So they cannot be trusted to run an impartial service.

Not tolerating xenophobia, racism and bigots in general is a big point for a lot of people. The paradox of tolerance is something that many people should consider.

Most people operate on a caricature version of the paradox, as opposed to Popper's more measured original.

Most go with something like "If we tolerate people who aren't 100% our version of kumbaya, we'll end up in tyranny", when Popper's original is restricted to people who have stopped listening, and would make their argument with pistols.

Most of the time, the paradox citers are closer to the "not listening" camp than not. Many are hideously fundamentalist ideologues who want to limit discussion to what they themselves find acceptable, not to deplatforming things that really try to deprive others of their freedom of choice.

Re: Tusky has been removed from the Play Store

#118

Post by ptero »

skohan wrote: post #76
chii wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dangers of building on a platform that is unregulated. 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.

I think this is one of the great unsolved problems of our time. Apple, Google and Amazon (ok and Azure too I guess) are effectively gatekeepers in terms of what products are allowed to exist online. And during the pandemic this is especially relevant, because for a great many people online life is public life for all intents and purposes. I think almost everyone would agree that a handful of unaccountable corporation…

It is even broader (and worse) than this. Technological gatekeepers you listed there are often working in concert with financial gatekeepers (credit card companies, payment processors) to prevent funding of alternative information flows.

Re: Tusky has been removed from the Play Store

#120

Post by vincnetas »

oblio wrote: post #116
cbradford wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a framework for this that was created over 100 years ago when the same problem happened with railroads. They did they same thing and used their monopoly power to discriminate on who could ship goods by rail. Society said that was wrong and we have the idea of a common carrier that must treat all customers the same. We should declare all app stores to be the same, common carries that may not discriminate. Bot…

We'll need a legal framework for removing apps in this case.

Court order. You cant remove app just because you dont like it. App should violate laws to be removed.
Post reply on HN