This is terrible, I've paid for the paid version for a while and have been a big fan of Podcast Addict.
Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content
371–380 of 577 posts
Re: Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content
#372Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> the term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information
By selectively funding the development of information they favor, YouTube or app stores could be considered in part responsible for the creation of that information, in which case that section would not protect them, because they would then be the information content provider, not merely a provider of an interactive computer service.
Re: Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content
#373This 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.
They have become the new public space over time. I doubt they intended this, but this is the new world in 2020.
If you want to spread an idea now, you won't walk to your local town a square and start talking on a makeshift podium. You'll post a tweet or a facebook post, or make a reddit thread.
Re: Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content
#374Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
They have become the new public space over time. I doubt they intended this, but this is the new world in 2020. If you want to spread an idea now, you won't walk to your local town a square and start talking on a makeshift podium. You'll post a tweet or a facebook post, or make a reddit thread.
Yes. I understand. And Twitter, Facebook, et. al are asking us not to use them. So let's stop.
Re: Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content
#375This 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…
In (US) law there are two sets for rights and responsibilities: public (government) and private (individuals and organizations). But when it comes to responsibilities individuals can suffer consequences that organizations can't. And organizations can have power vastly greater than that of any individual. In some ways they should be subject to restrictions like governments, in others they shouldn't.
Really we need a third group. Corporations aren't individual people, and the legal simplification of modeling corporations as people is problematic. Unfortunately this probably requires a constitutional amendment for the US to change.
Re: Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content
#376Good. When private companies see that something they are doing or enabling could lead to preventable human death, they have a responsibility to act on it.
If an app in their marketplace is helping spread misinformation about a public health crisis, that app can and should be removed from Google's marketplace.
America is a capitalist society. If you're going to do business in Google's ecosystem, you have to follow Google's rules. Google isn't tolerating COVID-19 misinformation, so if you're an app publisher in Google's ecosystem, you should adopt a similar stance.
Human life is on the line here. Google is doing the right thing.
Re: Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content
#377Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> the term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information By selectively funding the development of information they favor, YouTube or app stores could be considered in part responsible for the creation of that information, in which case that section would not protect them, because they would then be the information co…
[deleted]
Re: Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content
#378Earlier 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…
Podcast Addict builds an index of podcasts that it makes available to users whereas Chrome does not influence in any way what content users may want to view.
But your question is of course very apt when it comes to the Google Search app or Google's own podcast app.
There used to be this idea (a good idea in my view) that building a search index is a neutral activity that does not come with any editorial responsibility for the content.
Google used to fight for that idea but unfortunately lawmakers (and I think the majority of the population) have very firmly taken the opposite view.
I think that's what's ultimately at the core of this defensive "when in doubt, ban it!" attitude that was built into automatic content filtering tools and hammered into the heads of reviewers.
There are still gaps - the most glaring one being Google Search - but I think Google has largely given up that struggle in favour of avoiding billions in fines
Re: Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content
#379Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> the term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information By selectively funding the development of information they favor, YouTube or app stores could be considered in part responsible for the creation of that information, in which case that section would not protect them, because they would then be the information co…
That strikes me as a theory that began with a desired outcome first, as the law does not use the language you’re using, nor does it include any of the distinctions you’re trying to draw. There is no “unless if there’s an ad revenue sharing system” exception to 230.
Aside from the details of 230, I would think long and hard about the unintended side effects of what you’re proposing. Attempts to control what Google and similar can and cannot moderate either results in Google having no moderation power at all (a disaster for the entire internet), or gives the government the power to decide what and what is not protected from Google’s moderation (which is contrary to the point of this exercise).
Re: Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content
#380Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple preventing the sale of a product != Apple not selling a product. I don't ask Apple for permission to visit a website on my iPhone. Why should I ask their permission to install applications? Would it be so awful if I were allowed to run my own software?
But you don’t have to ask Google permission to install software. So why are people asking for intervention in this case? Choice is amazing. You had a choice to buy into Apple’s “walled garden” or buy an Android. You didn’t need the nanny state to make that choice for you.
You sort of do: before you sideload an app, you have to toggle a switch, agreeing that you are going to do something potentially unsafe. In the similar arrogant manner, they care about your safety purging Podcast Addict app, like parenting you.
The best solution would be an emergence of an Android fork and the corresponding platform, but this seems unlikely due to enormous (as in 100bn perhaps) startup capital required.
Do you propose any other constructive solutions?