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

Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store

qoto.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 996 posts

Re: Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store

#301

Post by kleer001 »

sildur wrote: post #254
mc32 wrote: post #95

It always starts like that. People agree to very sensible things. Like hate speech is bad and it’s not censorship if it’s not mandated by the government. Eventually the definition of hate or whatever it is that’s offensive is very removed from the original meaning, and now we all bear the brunt of the sensible people who with best intentions wanted to make things better.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

I love that aphorism. Unintended consequences. We should teach unintended consequences in grade school, high school, and have advanced degrees in it. How to see them before they explode, how to mediate them, and how to fix them once they're running at full steam.

Lately I've been imagining it along with the slowly boiling frog story and the crab-mentality too. As in some people can't tell we're headed to hell because it's coming so slowly, and some people will actively stop others from escaping hell or trying to fix the situation.

Re: Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store

#302

Post by SkyBelow »

felipeko wrote: post #252
Retric wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Censorship is allowed under the first amendment on obscenity or national security grounds. Private organizations just have more freedom in this area. EX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_v._Pacifica_Foundation

Is allowed under some interpretation of the first amendment. It is not allowed by the first amendement per se.

>under some interpretation

This would imply there are interpretations where it isn't allowed even in the cases of the worst most extreme content. Does any organization/group advocate such an interpretation? As far as I'm aware all groups either support an interpretation that allows the government to censor some speech or supports considering some speech as not counting as speech so it can be censored without censoring speech (using sophistry to hide censorship of speech).

Re: Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store

#303

Post by ascorbic »

Retric wrote: post #238
thomascgalvin wrote: post #169

> Like hate speech is bad and it’s not censorship if it’s not mandated by the government. To be fully accurate, this is absolutely censorship , but it's not a violation of anyone's First Amendment rights. People often conflate the two. We can argue about whether or not Google should ban certain opinions on their platform, or where the line should be drawn, but it is arguable that hey have the legal right to do so. An…

Censorship is allowed under the first amendment on obscenity or national security grounds. Private organizations just have more freedom in this area. EX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_v._Pacifica_Foundation

They don't "have more freedom in this area": they're not bound by it at all. They can ban whatever they want from their own platforms.

Re: Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store

#304

Post by lucb1e »

daniel-s wrote: post #18

A reminder that F-Droid [1] is a free software app store that can be used to download free/open source software, including Mastodon clients. [1] https://f-droid.org/

This will work for the people reading this here or who would otherwise already do this. I think decentralization is something we should aspire to promote more broadly than within the community using alternative app repositories.

Re: Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store

#305

Post by xienze »

thomascgalvin wrote: post #169

> Like hate speech is bad and it’s not censorship if it’s not mandated by the government. To be fully accurate, this is absolutely censorship , but it's not a violation of anyone's First Amendment rights. People often conflate the two. We can argue about whether or not Google should ban certain opinions on their platform, or where the line should be drawn, but it is arguable that hey have the legal right to do so. An…

> To be fully accurate, this is absolutely censorship, but it's not a violation of anyone's First Amendment rights. People often conflate the two.

You're technically right, but in practice it really doesn't matter that the "government" can't censor you when the modern "public square" is held almost entirely by private companies. The government doesn't really hold any power in shaping modern public discourse anymore, tech companies do! Now the fact that said private company's ideals line up closely with one certain political party is just a coincidence, I'm sure.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dl-uzz5VsAEA2Go?format=jpg

Re: Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store

#306

Post by Icathian »

cft wrote: post #81
john_moscow wrote: post #64

For anyone else concerned with the recent Big Tech censorship, people are actively building alternative social medial platforms and they are taking off. The RedditAlternatives subreddit [0] provides a fairly good overview of them. Some are rather extreme, others are more reasonable, but there are alternatives, and it's up to us, the reasonable people, to choose where we want to spend our time and money. [0] https://w…

Wait till they start blocking those Reddit alternatives in Chrome.

Honestly such a brazen step might be good in the long run. People are all to happy to be boiled frogs, and an overreach like that might jolt some off their ecosystem.

Re: Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store

#307

Post by mindslight »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #44
jhardy54 wrote: post #28

Shouldn't this policy apply to all communication apps? Web, IRC, SMS, and even phone calls can connect you with a hate speech provider if you know the right address to dial. This sets a dangerous precedent and highlights why we should continue removing Google/etc as dependencies in our lives.

Don't make the mistake of believing that systems run by human beings are required to be logically consistent.

Don't make the mistake of thinking we shouldn't demand that bureaucratic systems follow logical rules just because they're run by human beings.

Re: Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store

#308

Post by SkyBelow »

colpabar wrote: post #275
IntelMiner wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet. There's a certain "side" that wants to have that both ways Private companies can't censor "bad opinions" But private companies can also arbitrarily refuse service for say, making a "gay wedding cake" How is this disconnect rationalized?

doesn't it go both ways? if you flip both positions, it's also inconsistent.

I have to say I generally agree with you that when someone points out a contradiction in some common political stance, the reverse of that contradiction exists in the opposite stance. It seems pretty common, though it generally results from distilling a more complex view into a simplified statement (which may edge into the territory of creating men of straw).

Re: Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store

#309

Post by yellowbanana »

valvar wrote: post #177
mc32 wrote: post #95

It always starts like that. People agree to very sensible things. Like hate speech is bad and it’s not censorship if it’s not mandated by the government. Eventually the definition of hate or whatever it is that’s offensive is very removed from the original meaning, and now we all bear the brunt of the sensible people who with best intentions wanted to make things better.

I really don't get that logic. Of course, everyone agrees that hate speech is bad (and so are a lot of things, but I digress). But how is it not censorship when one of the world's most powerful companies does it? Do they get a free pass because they are governed by shareholders and make a lot of money? I can see how it's not censorship if Bob does not want people to post things he disagrees with on his cat picture fo…

Google regardless of it's size is still private, and should be allowed to host who it wants or doesn't, same as you should be forced to host visitors you dont want.

Free speech is that they shouldn't be a law by a government to punish expression of ideas or opinions.

citizens or companies should be allowed to host and not host whoever they want.

Re: Google is apparently taking down all/most Fediverse apps from the Play Store

#310

Post by kikokikokiko »

IntelMiner wrote: post #256
croes wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a clever trick. Make the medium you want to censor a private property than it's legal.

And yet. There's a certain "side" that wants to have that both ways Private companies can't censor "bad opinions" But private companies can also arbitrarily refuse service for say, making a "gay wedding cake" How is this disconnect rationalized?

Comparing "allowing/disallowing the use of a tool" to spread YOUR message, to the "demanding that an artist/artisan create a message of YOUR liking" is very disingenuous. To be fair, I'm a libertarian and in a perfect world, you can do whatever and allow whoever you want to use/not use YOUR business. But this analogy of the gay wedding cake is simply not a good one.
Post reply on HN