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

161–170 of 191 posts

Re: Google Play store bans polyamory dating app

#161

Post by alpaca128 »

jcpham2 wrote: post #137
throwaway316943 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember installing software before app stores. Everyone was always afraid of malware but very few people I knew ever suffered from it. Most people used anti virus software, asked their friends which programs they recommended, or did some research of their own to figure out what was safe to download. All that was probably at least as effective as the “curation” that app stores provide. The problem is that now a lot…

The problem is that code execution evolved to ransomware because cryptocurrency. If we’re being honest, some barriers were crossed and the threat evolved

> code execution evolved to ransomware because cryptocurrency

Cryptocurrency might have made it easier, but such scams are older than that. Just look at the whole range of tech support scams based on voucher codes.

Re: Google Play store bans polyamory dating app

#162

Post by prionassembly »

eric4smith wrote: post #145

On a side note... (side note!! sheesh!) "Polyamory ...is the practice of, or desire for, intimate relationships with more than one partner, with the informed consent of all partners involved" Sounds good, and has been the case for thousands of years. But modern dating apps and social media are pushing us back to this practice in quite a big (and informal) way. Its innate female nature for women to choose the best men…

This is a strange leap from a (partially true) incel talking point that monogamy is a force for the sexual equivalent of “income distribution” (incels objectify it too much; attractiveness doesn’t really match that well to the [0,10] segment of the real line) by to polyamory, which is a sort of fringe culture. If you look at your HBD/manosphere/whatever sources — I haven’t seen any of that since Nick Land’s blog went silent — you’ll see the word “hypergamy”, which is what you’re thinking of.

Like many things usually dismissed as deplorable because they’re uncomfortable, incel culture is built on some kernels of truth, but the whole edifice is shaky, not true as a whole and not helpful psychologically. It’s really best not to dwell on these things, try to expose yourself to social situations and try to be happy. I’m not genetically arranged so to be a top runner but running is fun. Losing is fun if you just go for things without expectations.

Re: Google Play store bans polyamory dating app

#163

Post by DC1350 »

This is pointless. The insecure nerds at Google need to get with the times instead of abusing their power like this to maintain their status. If you work at Google your wife will eventually have a boyfriend. Unless you want to be treated like a barbarian it's something you need to accept. Her body, her choice. Stop trying to control who your partner can have sex with.

Re: Google Play store bans polyamory dating app

#164

Post by odshoifsdhfs »

Griffinsauce wrote: post #160
odshoifsdhfs wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not American or follow US politics that much, but did she ask for Parler to be shutdown? If she did, even if others did as well, it should be ok to point her out on this. Specially (from what I understand from seeing some of her twitter posts on Reddit) if she is very vocal on Twitter (reminded me of accusing Ted Cruz of trying to assassinate her tweet) about these things and can rally support for it through soc…

> If she did, even if others did as well, it should be ok to point her out on this That exactly my point, the original comment points her out as the only or the main voice. That is just not true, it paints a skewed picture. She was either joining the choir of voices or preaching to it. The goal of that characterisation is to demonize this one person into the source of this action. (ironically often combined with an i…

But as a government representative, even if just a voice in a chorus, to promote something that may be against people's rights (I am not saying it is, just that some people may consider it - freedom of speech) and to directly influence companies to do what they think is right even (apparently) without any legal justification, a breach of her duties? If she is the most visible voice (social media breadth can also be used against you) shouldn't she also be one of the most singled out people?

In my country, even if the party agrees, usually who makes the comments more visibly (usually on TV) gets the 'blame' or ire of people. This is pretty normal and part of their duties as government representatives (otherwise they don't go to the media when they don't want the scrutiny of their words)

edit: Suppose the entire democrats are for doing something, but she tweets to her millions of followers about it, which creates social pressure from her followers for a company to do something, even if the entire democratic wing agrees, she as the 'inciter' shouldn't she also get the brunt of the ire? Or it is only for the good things you get credit (AOC defends better minimum wage, or student debt cancelation) but the bad ones no (democrats want to shut down parlour) ?

This is something I saw on US and European news. If 'America' did something 'bad', headlines would say 'Trump did this', if it was 'good', headlines would say 'America did this'. You can see this today, now a bit reversed, on cnn politics website. There are two positive headlines, both mention Harris and Biden by name, while the negative uses White House.

Re: Google Play store bans polyamory dating app

#165

Post by prionassembly »

sprite wrote: post #36

Just a quick search in Google Play Store shows several apps that are similarly named including "Threesome Dating App for Couples & Swingers: 3rder". While I don't agree that they should be policing this content at all I think the inconsistency at which they do it is even worse. They won't hesitate to remove an app or your entire account and once they do it's impossible to talk to anyone. Meanwhile other similar apps…

Swinging is a relatively mainstream lifestyle (what, there was even an Ang “Hulk” Lee movie surrounding it). Polyamory is a more fringe culture. It requires a degree of thoughtfulness that’s way beyond my level of emotional intelligence. Swingers on the other hand can just be a couple with a high level of trust and companionship.

Then, having and raising children “properly” requires an even higher level of pair bonding magic.

Re: Google Play store bans polyamory dating app

#166

Post by onetimemanytime »

dfgdghdf wrote: post #120
onetimemanytime wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely not traditional though, to say the least: https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/2/20680145/android-andy-rubi... "...allegation that Andy supported a string of mistresses, who would often be loaned to other men in what he described as “an ownership relationship.” The complaint alleges Andy had at least five such mistresses, including one (dubbed “M”) who was “complicit with Rubin in running what appeared to be a…

It's funny how the word "traditional" is thrown around. A traditional marriage in the biblical or medieval sense treated women as property, which is probably much closer to what Andy Rubin was up to than a consensual BDSM relationship! Really the only point I want to make is that we shouldn't lump consensual "non-mainstream" relationships with abusive ones and call it "those freaks over there".

Well, they banned polyamory apps. Why? Because it's not traditional, more or less

Re: Google Play store bans polyamory dating app

#167

Post by neogodless »

bambax wrote: post #97

There are no solutions for suspensions from app stores. The solution is to not use app stores -- build better webapps, use the open web. We could be living in a world where no open web ever existed, where everything would be filtered through app stores and closed environments like Facebook (AOL). We need to preserve the open web, it is our most precious ressource.

> The solution is to not use app stores

Before smartphones, I was a "tech savvy" computer user. I would install lots of software on my computer from the internet. But I wouldn't necessarily recommend the same for people that looked to me for computer advice. Many people would go to a store and buy a box with a disc in it, which was something you could trust because incentives aligned. Stores would prefer to only carry trustworthy software (in a box) to maintain their reputation as a good store, competitive with other stores. But similarly, I would look to web sites I trusted for my software. The most sophisticated users would look to peer-reviewed, open source software, but this involves knowing either how to review it yourself, or knowing who else to trust as having reviewed it.

Smartphones could've evolved to work like the above, perhaps relying on a USB port for software installs, with options to install directly from developers on the internet, but Apple had already learned from iTunes how to use control to both ensure a pretty good experience for users while also getting a lot of money for it. Google may never have gained enough traction with Android if they didn't build the Play Store and introduce convenience and a sense of trust in that store.

So it's really hard to picture a way that this could've evolved without those stores, such that critical mass was reached on these platforms. It's also hard to envision a strong, competitive alternative. The "masses" choose convenience the vast majority of the time, and they also largely want to trust one source for their software needs. They do not want to figure out whether to trust lots of software providers.

There will always be bad actors who take advantage of concepts like "the open web", so how do you keep things open, but safe and trusted? Can you create a federated system that has "experts you trust" and "peers you trust" and then can go to their recommendations to see which software providers to trust? And wrap that into a pretty tidy interface that everyone can easily adopt? And have the trust system and the device platforms work nicely together to prevent "middle man" attacks?

Re: Google Play store bans polyamory dating app

#168

Post by eric4smith »

greenwich26 wrote: post #154
eric4smith wrote: post #145

On a side note... (side note!! sheesh!) "Polyamory ...is the practice of, or desire for, intimate relationships with more than one partner, with the informed consent of all partners involved" Sounds good, and has been the case for thousands of years. But modern dating apps and social media are pushing us back to this practice in quite a big (and informal) way. Its innate female nature for women to choose the best men…

Historically, monogamous societies are far more prosperous than harem-based societies. The reason is obvious: monogamy entices the entire male population to invest in their family and nation, have a good career, and build property and wealth. Without monogamy, a large segment of males have no such motivations, and they are uninvolved in society, detached from the future, and more likely to pursue self-pleasing leisur…

Exactly. Some commenters are here just pushing the point away. But it's actually happening right in front of our eyes.

As I said, i'm not on one side of the other. I'm just noticing the social situation happening.

Re: Google Play store bans polyamory dating app

#170

Post by selfhoster11 »

alpaca128 wrote: post #161
jcpham2 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that code execution evolved to ransomware because cryptocurrency. If we’re being honest, some barriers were crossed and the threat evolved

> code execution evolved to ransomware because cryptocurrency Cryptocurrency might have made it easier, but such scams are older than that. Just look at the whole range of tech support scams based on voucher codes.

A tech support scam can be unlocked by a competent technician for much less than the amount requested by the crooks. A ransomware attack with asymmetric crypto cannot be unlocked in a similar way, math simply won't let you (bar faulty ransomware that happens to reveal its key).
Post reply on HN