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.
which i would be very happy to have. As long as it is consistently enforced, and clear as law.
Myself, working in an at-will state, it’s quite a different situation. If I lose my job there are thousands of other companies that would be happy to have me. Many of whom are filled with great people who are sane and reasonable. When it comes to selling mobile apps there are two storefronts with unforgiving chaotic management that will drop you at the turn of a hat.
you are confusing at-will with having an open enough systems that promote equity for all the equity for all is what guarantees what you have experienced not an at-well work state
What is equity for all? Everyone getting the exact same outcome? Equality of opportunity makes sense, though.
See also when the Matrix client Element was removed in a similar fashion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25964226 I think it would be best to rename this submission to "Tusky (Mastodon app) suspended from Google Play Store" because people who do not use Mastodon have no context for what Tusky is.
I misread it as "Turkey", as in the country, until I read your message.
It still blows my mind that Mastodon was explicitly made to escape the 'dictator companies' of closed social networks but that many of the apps made for Mastodon contain blacklists. I don't agree with the content of said blacklisted Mastodon instances and I agree that developers can do whatever they want with their app, but blacklists seem painfully obviously against the spirit of what Mastodon is supposed to represe…
There's a joke (can't find the comic or article, darn you Google search) that says when you make a forum with "free speech" you get one civil libertarian and 99 trolls, neo nazis, child pornographers, etc. Moderation is essential for usable communities. These block lists are a form of moderation to make Mastodon useful. Otherwise it's pushed on to the user, many of whom will just nope out back to Reddit or Facebook,…
The Tusky blocklists for eg. Gab and Spinster don't impact the actual communities one iota - most Mastodon servers already block them, and the instance and user level are where the filtering should take place in Mastodon's system design. Some rando using Spinster on their phone isn't going to contaminate anyone else.
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.
This was mentioned earlier in the year when Element client was banned. Google Chrome can load the Element client in the browser and access all the same content.
It's probably just a bad AI trying to help Google manage a massive platform. It's just sad to think about all the developers who can't call on a Twitter following to get their app unbanned quickly.
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."
The best places online I've seen really allow for all kinds, but hold norms for civil discourse. Weirdly, they also often actually manage civil discussion, even if people also row a bit. And what they succeed in from what I've seen is people understanding each other, finding humans instead of political cartoons on the other side of the nickname.
We'll need a legal framework for removing apps in this case.
which i would be very happy to have. As long as it is consistently enforced, and clear as law.
I don't think we have laws against the kinds of things that make these apps challenging. If you publish someone's personal information on an app, is it the app's fault? Is the app subject to legal sanction for being an engine of harassment?
Apps with good moderation and communities can do things that other apps cannot. How do you tell the difference, legally, without punishing apps that are trying but have a bad incident?
This is about patterns more than specific moments. The law is about moments. So its hard.
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…
People love to talk about great the web of the 90's was, and I miss it myself, but what made it work was "the price of admission" which elevated the level of both the posters (who had to understand how to make, and pay for, a web site), and the readers (who had to pay for an internet connection, and understand how to configure the connection). I think categorizing social media services as common carriers is half of it. People who shipped things over the rail line also paid money for the service. I think social media services should charge a nominal fee for the privilege of posting. This alone would keep out a lot of the spammy riff-raff, and would automatically help in taking some pressure off the moderation algorithms and content screeners. If it were up to me, I'd put limits on how large of an enterprise would be allowed to be supported with ad tech.
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…
Uh, it’s alarming to see someone refer to hate speech as a made up term. Do you think hate speech doesn’t exist?