Tusky has been removed from the Play Store • Hacker News Board

Re: Tusky has been removed from the Play Store

#231

Post by bordercases » Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 7:21 PM UTC

INTPenis wrote: post #126

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.

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.

> 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.

How do you think that inference works? Through pattern matching "Mastodon" then raising a flag. Who sets the pattern?

Re: Tusky has been removed from the Play Store

#232

Post by UncleMeat » Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 7:34 PM UTC

vincnetas wrote: post #120

oblio wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most adware and other data abusing apps aren't breaking the law.

Re: Tusky has been removed from the Play Store

#233

Post by wizzwizz4 » Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 9:09 PM UTC

cbradford wrote: post #208

sweetheart wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, it’s alarming to see someone refer to hate speech as a made up term. Do you think hate speech doesn’t exist?

Correct. Hate speech means speech you do not like because it disagrees with your biases and viewpoints. For some the use of speech to coordinate a summer of violent riots is hate speech, for others it is a rally cry of the oppressed. Using the violence of the state to restrict freedom of speech and thought is never done by people on the right side of history.

It's (almost) always done by people on the wrong side of history. There's an important distinction, there. Should people be free from consequences for these?

• Yelling fire in a crowded theatre

• Posting

  nohup sudo -knu cat /dev/zero > /dev/sd*

(but, you know, a working version) as an answer to “how do I recover my backups URGENT!!1” on a Q&A site / IRC.

• Asking a very drunk person to hand their wallet over to the “wallet inspectors” for “indefinite inspection and spending”.

• Asking a bank employee to wire you money from someone else's account.

• Asking a bank computer to wire you money from someone else's account.

• Giving somebody else the DeCSS decryption keys.

• Publishing a detailed procedure for how to build a dirty bomb using common household items.

• Verbally punching down in a way that causes significant psychological distress.

I know what I'd answer to these.

Re: Tusky has been removed from the Play Store

#234

Post by scns » Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 10:39 PM UTC

soundnote wrote: post #194

notsuoh wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Partially a percentage of badness fits into the equation too, though. It's not as reducible as you're implying. Facebook, as much as I dislike it, is mostly people sharing memes and life updates with some terrorist planning that is to some extent actively hunted and removed. Parlor is the opposite, except that the conspiracies are encouraged, and indeed the company was built on this philosophy. Surely this is a relev…

It depends in part on what you consider to be fact. Part of the problem of the modern day is that the two tribes have in parts wildly diverging views on reality (and by my estimate both believe in some very nonsensical things), and the mainstream outlets very much encourage leftist brands of nonsense. The other issue is that if the mainstream thing bans certain things, any free speech alternative will be excessively…

"If you can cultivate the right attitude, your enemies are your best spiritual teachers because their presence provides you with the opportunity to enhance and develop your tolerance, patience and understanding." - Buddha

Re: Tusky has been removed from the Play Store

#235

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 11:42 PM UTC

brigandish wrote: post #225

dragonwriter wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Deplatforming isn't speech tho. Criticizing speech is speech. Criticizing speech and advocating, on the basis of that criticism, that people should choose not to relay the criticized speech is speech. Choosing what speech to relay or not is speech (except when it is “press”, but those are effectively aspects of the same thing called out separately to prevent an artificial distinction from being used to regulate spe…

> Deplatforming is speech, from advocacy to execution. Censorship (of which deplatforming is one form) is not the same as choosing not to listen, and hence, is not part of freedom of speech.

> Censorship (of which deplatforming is one form) is not the same as choosing not to listen and hence, is not part of freedom of speech.

Deplatforming is choosing not to actively relay speech. While, yes, such does (as “self-censorship”) fit in some of the broader conceptions of censorship, it's absolutely part of the freedom of speech (and central to the idea of the “marketplace of ideas”, the same as people being free not to buy, distribute, and resell your goods is central to classical markets in goods and services.)

The “freedom of speech” isn't limited to choosing not to listen, hence why it isn't called the “freedom to choose not to listen”. Freedom from making speech at the direction of another party is at least as fundamental as freedom not to listen.

Re: Tusky has been removed from the Play Store

#236

Post by jhugo » Thu, Mar 18, 2021, 2:19 AM UTC

thepra wrote: post #107

jhugo wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, so how do I know what the external service is doing with my personal information? 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?

The app is on itself open source, normally it doesn't track users. I'm also a hoster of my own fediverse instance and data is shared in the network only with the instances with which you interact, and the same thing is for me. And I don't have any privacy policy because I'm the only user in my instance.

I've seen a great many open-source apps add analytics frameworks to the version they deploy to the App Store. Is there any way to verify that the version on the App Store is built from the same code that's in the repository, without modification?

Re: Tusky has been removed from the Play Store

#237

Post by brigandish » Thu, Mar 18, 2021, 4:47 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #235

brigandish wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Deplatforming is speech, from advocacy to execution. Censorship (of which deplatforming is one form) is not the same as choosing not to listen, and hence, is not part of freedom of speech.

> Censorship (of which deplatforming is one form) is not the same as choosing not to listen and hence, is not part of freedom of speech. Deplatforming is choosing not to actively relay speech. While, yes, such does (as “self-censorship”) fit in some of the broader conceptions of censorship, it's absolutely part of the freedom of speech (and central to the idea of the “marketplace of ideas”, the same as people being f…

Freedom of speech is called freedom of speech and not the “freedom to choose not to listen” because the freedom not to listen is implied by freedom of speech, for anyone that's thought about it. And it's easier to say free speech than recite On Liberty. Shorthand is usually enough.

Deplatforming is censorship because, if done actively and exceptionally (i.e. discriminatorially and out of the ordinary routine) then it is the attempt to prevent the speaker from speaking and anyone wishing to listeners being able to listen.

It seems to me that you're conflating distribution with purchase in your analogy, which might explain your subsequent reasoning, though I find them to be quite different things. If you are going to conflate them then distributors refusing to distribute the goods of gays or blacks based on them being gay or black, given that they usually distribute goods from non-gays and non-blacks, that is not prejudicial discrimination?

I would not agree with that in a marketplace, and that wouldn't fit with my conception of freedom of speech either, given the analogy.

If, however, we were talking about private individuals and not distributors, then I agree that they should be able to choose who they purchase from or even sell to - in a private capacity, not as a business - whether based on prejudice or not. Just as with speaking and listening.

Re: Tusky has been removed from the Play Store

#238

Post by garritfra » Thu, Mar 18, 2021, 5:38 AM UTC

justinclift wrote: post #205

garritfra wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, thanks for the hint. Title has been changed.

Doesn't seem to be? Looking at the title just now, it just says "Tusky has been removed from the Play Store". There's literally no context as to WTF a "Tusky" is. ;) That being said, people who care could probably do a general online search and find out... :)

I did change it, but it seems like a mod decided the previous title fits better.

Re: Tusky has been removed from the Play Store

#239

Post by fomine3 » Thu, Mar 18, 2021, 6:21 AM UTC

derpthebert wrote: post #37

fwn wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a relevant blog post f-droid published in 2019 on Tusky and Fedilab: https://f-droid.org/en/2019/07/16/statement.html They do seem to ague in favor of free software. .. at least as long as app developers do not advertise shunned instances. Power-statements like "sometimes, staying neutral isn’t an option" suggest that they are probably not an ally of those wanting to leave it to the user to decide what hosts…

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

Just curious, why your account banned?

Re: Tusky has been removed from the Play Store

#240

Post by vincnetas » Thu, Mar 18, 2021, 6:25 AM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #232

vincnetas wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Most adware and other data abusing apps aren't breaking the law.

They are. At least in EU. And we need to remember, that we live in free sociaty in a sense that you can do everything what is not forbiden, in contrast to doing only what is allowed. So if in US these apps are not forbiden then US should change that.