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

361–370 of 577 posts

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

#361

Post by ashtonkem »

Mirioron wrote: post #282
jl2718 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Do I understand you correctly that you're talking about whether discretionary content filtering by a platform makes them into a publisher? This would mean that protections that apply to platforms wouldn't apply to them anymore for things like copyright infringement, right?

Section 230 provides immunity to Google and similar for content posted by other users and services. The notion that section 230 requires that Google be neutral in order to maintain that protection is not in the text of the law, and appears to be made up out of whole cloth. I will quote the entirely of section 230 below, see for yourself.

> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

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

#362

Post by Spivak »

imron wrote: post #147
lord_erasmus wrote: post #61

In most of these stories featuring Google abusing their power to remove apps, it's usually a matter of some automated tool gone wrong and the problem is solved a couple of days later. But this time it's different, they are actually asking developers to censor themselves if they are not affiliated with a gov.

> and the problem is solved a couple of days later. If the developer is lucky enough to hit the front page of HN.

This isn't as weird as it seems in this new weird world. The "most official" support channel for Spotify is their Twitter handle while their email form is the secondary option.

Letting internet outrage drive the support queue is oddly pragmatic.

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

#363

Post by jimmySixDOF »

lgleason wrote: post #307
xphilter wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

-Section 230

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Twenty-Six-Words-That-Created-Interne...

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

#364

Post by UncleMeat »

goda90 wrote: post #357
rjmunro wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does f-droid police "shovelware and spyware"? Or just outright malware? Surely they will remove it? In which case your favourite app might be "arbitrarily removed"?

They try to scan for them, and have reporting options. Its open source apps only, so first, if its removed, then arguments can be made using the full source code as evidence one way or another. And you can always grab the code for your favorite app and build it yourself. https://f-droid.org/en/docs/Anti-Features/

Open source doesn't change anything here. Bytecode has a extremely tight relationship with source so even if none of the code is open you can still strongly point to specific pieces of code that cause problems. The core issue with detailed explanations of the malicious behavior that trips over automated detection is that it enables malware authors to more easily hide malicious behavior.

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

#365

Post by Spivak »

vageli wrote: post #318
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...but either way this is unlikely to be company policy Perhaps you haven't seen the article because it's behind an Apple News link. There's a screenshot of a message stating company policy as follows: "Pursuant to Section 8.3 of the Developer Agreement and the Enforcement policy, apps referencing Covid-19, or related terms, in any form will only be approved for distribution on Google Play if they are published, com…

> >...but either way this is unlikely to be company policy > Perhaps you haven't seen the article because it's behind an Apple News link. There's a screenshot of a message stating company policy as follows: > "Pursuant to Section 8.3 of the Developer Agreement and the Enforcement policy, apps referencing Covid-19, or related terms, in any form will only be approved for distribution on Google Play if they are publishe…

Because policies are written and interpreted by humans that have the common sense to understand that there is no connection between the browser app and the content it displays.

This entire thread is a discussion about Google's automatic tool flagging a podcast browser erroneously. If Google's response was to uphold the suspension then there would be an actual story, but they won't, and so it isn't.

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

#366

Post by sixstringtheory »

cft wrote: post #10

I think a socially good deed would be to take the original tweet https://twitter.com/PodcastAddict/status/1261671685477941253... and respond to it tweeting @FTC , @kenpaxtontx (who is behind the antimonopoly case). Google will reinstate the app soon, but it should help building the antimonopoly case against this evil machine.

Somewhat on topic: a reply to that tweet simply had the captain kirk facepalm gif, and twitter warned me that it may contain sensitive content. Social media is creating a milquetoast society.

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

#367

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

api wrote: post #328
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…

Centralized walled gardens are going to face this no matter what policy they have. Too loose? They run afoul of laws and offend people. Too strict? They develop a reputation for censorship and offend people. There is no way they can win. That's why everything has to go decentralized, encrypted, headless, and amorphous. The endpoint should be the end of platforms in favor of protocols and interfaces to those protocols…

> Get to work.

lol. it's your point. you get to work. i'm not your bitch.

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

#368

Post by fencepost »

I haven't seen this mentioned, but if this was the result of an automated process with no human review, do apps from com.google.* have a hardcoded exemption? Is there a low paid outsourced staff somewhere that provides the same exemption function? Are there any examples of Google's automated processes banning any of their own apps (or the entire account....)?

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

#369

Post by Spivak »

gitgud wrote: post #191
gundmc wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think this is something other than another (awful) high profile case of automation gone wrong?

Surely Google's automated tools wouldn't automatically suspend an app that has 5 stars and over 500,000 reviews .... surely

That kind "popularity content" policy will never work because because then scammers will just buy apps with good reputation. This describes the entire browser extension marketplace. Any extension with a good reputation and a broad permission set will sell for a good bit of money.

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

#370

Post by Consultant32452 »

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…

>If we treat Android, Window, Twitter, Facebook, as public spaces/goods

I feel like they're screaming at the top of their lungs asking you to not think of those things as public spaces. I am happy to try to oblige them.

Post reply on HN