Google have declared Droidscript is malware • Hacker News Board

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#521

Post by sanxiyn » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 12:33 AM UTC

mleonhard wrote: post #484

blacklight wrote: post #472

This is the same story that HN readers have read hundreds of times over the past couple of years, just with different subjects. Independent developer/small organization gets their app/YouTube channel/Google account shut down overnight because of false positives triggered by their system. It takes weeks and insistence with bots to just get to speak to a human. When you get to speak to a human, they usually respond wit…

Google is 1/2 of the mobile duopoly. No app developer can avoid Google Play Store (for publishing their apps) and Firebase Cloud Messaging (for sending push notifications to their apps).

Sure they can. They just chose not to.

Do not support Apple. Do not support Google. Support freedom.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#522

Post by ncmncm » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 12:34 AM UTC

tshaddox wrote: post #517

saurik wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't about wanting to deceive, it is about their seemingly unwillingness to admit; these are related, but not at all the same. It is the same kind of semantic difference people think is really important when discussing scenarios like "you didn't misplace my item on accident, you discarded it on purpose and we both know that: I want to hear you say it out loud".

But, as others have mentioned, it's extremely standard to use phrasing like "can't do that" and "unable to do that" like this. It's simply not reasonable to interpret this messaging as intended to claim that it's physically impossible to do the thing. I totally understand being upset with Google's policy and decision here, but this particular criticism about the wording they used is simply disingenuous.

We all know what it means because we are familiar with numerous other cases of such dissembling. That does not make it any less dishonest; it just means they are members of a big, dishonest club.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#523

Post by tshaddox » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 12:41 AM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #522

tshaddox wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, as others have mentioned, it's extremely standard to use phrasing like "can't do that" and "unable to do that" like this. It's simply not reasonable to interpret this messaging as intended to claim that it's physically impossible to do the thing. I totally understand being upset with Google's policy and decision here, but this particular criticism about the wording they used is simply disingenuous.

We all know what it means because we are familiar with numerous other cases of such dissembling. That does not make it any less dishonest; it just means they are members of a big, dishonest club.

It’s not dishonest when it’s how everyone uses language and how everyone else understands the language.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#524

Post by sigzero » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 12:41 AM UTC

joemi wrote: post #323

sequoia wrote: post #301

> ...after taking into consideration the information that you have provided, we have confirmed that we are unable to reinstate your publisher account. I hate when using euphemism slides into flat out lying like this. They are not "unable" to reinstate the account, in fact they are the only party able to reinstate the account, that's why the account holder was contacting them instead of someone else. They are "unwilli…

It's not lying because there is some implicit information in the "we are unable" statement. What is implied in statements like this is that they're unable due to their policies. If not for implications like this, almost every single use of "unable" (or "can't", for that matter) ever in a sentence would be "lying" unless something is against the laws of physics.

It is still "unwilling". "Unable" implies a capacity to do a thing which they clearly can but they are "unwilling" to do so because of their policies.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#525

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 12:43 AM UTC

Steltek wrote: post #249

stevewodil wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try Flutter! Great SDK to get started with mobile development, and dart is a really nice language

Having tried neither, Flutter sounds like the polar opposite of both the experience and capability that GP mentioned. I'm sure it's nice but can it be developed interactively in a PC browser as described above?

[deleted]

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#526

Post by ncmncm » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 12:46 AM UTC

busymom0 wrote: post #520

mike_d wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work detecting ad fraud. Publishers would do bad things, call in, and try to get their account rep to get details. Obviously I can't say "of the last 2500 ad clicks zero of them had any mouse movement over the ad before the click event" because then the publisher obviously just fixes their fraud software. This isn't specific to Google or even advertising. Every company has figured out when dealing with abus…

If the justice system started acting this way too where they don't tell you what crime you committed, what proof they have and how others can not commit such crimes, then I don't think that would mean "minimum amount of information is beneficial to the health of the society as a whole". This is basically letting get away with arbitrary rules without any accountability.

That is how the US "No Fly" list is managed, and is exactly what makes it unconstitutional extrajudicial punishment.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#527

Post by int_19h » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 12:55 AM UTC

ajross wrote: post #14

blakesterz wrote: post #2

I had to go look to see what this was: "DroidScript is an easy to use, portable coding tool which simplifies mobile App development. It dramatically improves productivity by speeding up development by as much as 10x compared with using the standard development tools. It’s also an ideal tool for learning JavaScript, you can literally code anywhere with DroidScript, it’s not cloud based and doesn’t require an internet…

Time for one of these again. So... having read through their marketing material, this is an on-device tool that opens up what appears to be most of the Android application API to at least the user of the device, and potentially to any Droidscript applications they grab from other sources, and... maybe to other apps on the device? It's not clear from a quick read how extensive the runtime control is. So just right out…

The fact that Android Play Store had apps like that all the way back to the earliest days is precisely why some of us have an Android phone rather than an iOS one. There are full-fledged Lua, Python, C++, Java etc IDEs there.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#528

Post by ncmncm » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 1:02 AM UTC

tshaddox wrote: post #523

ncmncm wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We all know what it means because we are familiar with numerous other cases of such dissembling. That does not make it any less dishonest; it just means they are members of a big, dishonest club.

It’s not dishonest when it’s how everyone uses language and how everyone else understands the language.

It is not how everyone uses language. I do not use language that way. If you used language that way, you would be dishonest. It is how dishonest corporations use language.

That we are aware they are dishonest does not make them less so.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#529

Post by xmprt » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 1:03 AM UTC

CrendKing wrote: post #380

zepto wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically you are right. However the key here is exploiting the ambiguity. ‘We are unable to’ is a cowardly way of saying ‘we choose not to’, or ‘our policy dictates’.

If Google chose to use the "uncowardly" wording, I'm sure someone would just post saying Google is arrogant and cocky bastard. No matter what someone will find some point to complain. Human nature.

> No matter what someone will find some point to complain

I don't think there would be many complaints if Google didn't take down apps for vague reasons.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#530

Post by tshaddox » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 1:04 AM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #528

tshaddox wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not dishonest when it’s how everyone uses language and how everyone else understands the language.

It is not how everyone uses language. I do not use language that way. If you used language that way, you would be dishonest. It is how dishonest corporations use language. That we are aware they are dishonest does not make them less so.

It’s not dishonest because it is language used with a certain intended meaning and that intended meaning is clear to everyone including the people complaining about it. That’s precisely what normal, honest usage of language is: you have an intended meaning and you effectively convey the intended meaning.