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

Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 577 posts

Re: Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content

#301

Post by scarface74 »

falcolas wrote: post #297
scarface74 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you paying attention to the actions of the modern judicial system in the US that votes along party lines? You really think that judges with their own religious and political biases and with lifetime appointments “care about you”?

By that same token, are you paying attention to the actions being taken by Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon? There are no clean actors here, but the difference between the judicial system and the big companies is that the judicial system has people who care about more than just profits.

It’s even worse. They care about their own ideologies that are often at odds with mine.

The difference is that it is much easier to not be beholden to the private corporations you mentioned than the government. Private corporations don’t have the power of the state to take away my liberty, property or life.

Re: Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content

#302

Post by falcolas »

scarface74 wrote: post #270
bzb3 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my country >90% of smartphone users have Android. Yes I would call that a monopoly. Yes I think monopolies should be regulated. Not at the city level since that's ridiculous and sounds like a strawman. That comment was just an example of monopolies that need to be regulated.

Isn’t the whole beauty of Android that it is “open” and that you can sideload apps and you are not beholden to a “walled garden”?

As Epic found out, not if you want to remain on Google's good side. They were facing sanctions from Google due to their sideloading of Fortnight onto Android phones and tablets.

Re: Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content

#303

Post by koheripbal »

nelaboras wrote: post #267
heinrichhartman wrote: post #211

This is the result of out-sourcing juristic work to private companies: If we treat Android, Window, Twitter, Facebook, as public spaces/goods, then private companies should not have a say in what is allowed/not-allowed on their platforms. This is work for the courts and police to decide and enforce. If we treat those platforms as private. Then we are playing in s/o's backyard. You are totally at their mercy. They hav…

The problem is that they have to act across borders. Examples: In the EU you don't need to filter pornography the same way as in the US. In the US you don't need to filter personal information (eg individuals' faces) the same way as in the EU. Or does Google need to ban insults of the Thai king? Which legislation should apply? Already now China has split the global internet in a China and non-China part...

Is that a problem, or an opportunity? If we create an effective decentralized mechanic to act across jurisdictions, maybe we'd solve more than our immediate problem.

Re: Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content

#304

Post by wlkr »

jl2718 wrote: post #258
heinrichhartman wrote: post #211

This is the result of out-sourcing juristic work to private companies: If we treat Android, Window, Twitter, Facebook, as public spaces/goods, then private companies should not have a say in what is allowed/not-allowed on their platforms. This is work for the courts and police to decide and enforce. If we treat those platforms as private. Then we are playing in s/o's backyard. You are totally at their mercy. They hav…

The only thing that needs to be constitutionally challenged is whether discretionary content filtering constitutes agency in publication under section 230 of the CDA.

From what I gather this is largely addressed and the answer, it seems, is no [0,1]. (Disclaimer, IANAL and IANAUSC.)

[0]: https://abovethelaw.com/2019/06/explainer-how-letting-platfo...

[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 (Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material)

Re: Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content

#305

Post by koheripbal »

scarface74 wrote: post #274
chroem- wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please stop. The more we play this tit-for-tat game of political point scoring, the more it causes the whole system to degenerate. It is corrupting every facet of our society, to the point at which we're no longer able to be objective about life and death matters like the current pandemic.

No I’m just amazed that people are willing to give government more power - the same government who would like nothing more than to have more power to intrude on people’s life.

We're advocating moving this power from massive corporations to the government, because at least the government has some accountability, whereas Google has NONE.

Re: Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content

#306

Post by heinrichhartman »

scarface74 wrote: post #272
heinrichhartman wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not talking the US in particular here. I am saying these decisions should be made by courts not by private institutions, that have stakes in that game.

So instead of being made by private companies, they should be made by unelected partisan judges....

No?

Re: Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content

#307

Post by lgleason »

xphilter wrote: post #247
john_minsk wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they want to be private someone will take them to court for advertising drugs or something like that. They should have stayed neutral.

That’s impossible. Congress exempted the entire internet from court on something like this. Look at the communications decency act.

only if they stay neutral. This goes beyond that.

Re: Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content

#308

Post by scarface74 »

koheripbal wrote: post #305
scarface74 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I’m just amazed that people are willing to give government more power - the same government who would like nothing more than to have more power to intrude on people’s life.

We're advocating moving this power from massive corporations to the government, because at least the government has some accountability, whereas Google has NONE.

Where is this accountability? The Senate by design has two senators regardless of the population of the state, meaning that if you live in a more populous state, you have less voting power than people living in the flyover states. The electoral college also biases the Presidential election to less populous states. Not to mention even in the House of Representatives the ratio between the parties doesn’t match the popular vote because of gerrymandering.

How “accountable” are judges with lifetime appointments?

Google is accountable. If they don’t give people what they want, people don’t give them money directly or indirectly.

Re: Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content

#309

Post by scarface74 »

falcolas wrote: post #302
scarface74 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t the whole beauty of Android that it is “open” and that you can sideload apps and you are not beholden to a “walled garden”?

As Epic found out, not if you want to remain on Google's good side. They were facing sanctions from Google due to their sideloading of Fortnight onto Android phones and tablets.

What “sanctions” were they facing? They were called out because their app was a security nightmare.

https://www.cnet.com/news/fortnites-battle-royale-with-andro...

Re: Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content

#310

Post by scarface74 »

heinrichhartman wrote: post #306
scarface74 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So instead of being made by private companies, they should be made by unelected partisan judges....

No?

That’s exactly the choice you make in the US.
Post reply on HN