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

541–550 of 577 posts

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

#541

Post by gowld »

Thorentis wrote: post #493
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…

Putting users in charge does not solve censorship problems. The majority opinion - if it is in favour of censorship - will censor competing opinions. Public ownership does not solve censorship. See: the CCP. Effective policing does not solve censorship. The police will be tools of whoever and whatever is funding them. The only way to combat censorship is through decentralised and distributed platforms that are made p…

CCP is not public ownership. CCP is a minority political party that subjugates the public through violence.

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

#542

Post by gowld »

blhack wrote: post #286

At this point: I wish they’d just take a stronger stance and ban everything they don’t like. Just ban the political party they don’t like, ban anything that speaks out against China, just ban it all. We need to go back to the web, where anybody could install Apache and off they went. Bandwidth is cheap now. BitTorrent exists. I hope google and twitter and Facebook and all the rest just hurry up with all this. Some ot…

Arizona has beaches.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/travel/arizona/road-trips/20...

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

#543

Post by wizzwizz4 »

stOneskull wrote: post #531
blhack wrote: post #286

At this point: I wish they’d just take a stronger stance and ban everything they don’t like. Just ban the political party they don’t like, ban anything that speaks out against China, just ban it all. We need to go back to the web, where anybody could install Apache and off they went. Bandwidth is cheap now. BitTorrent exists. I hope google and twitter and Facebook and all the rest just hurry up with all this. Some ot…

> We need to go back to the web, where anybody could install Apache and off they went. Bandwidth is cheap now. BitTorrent exists. the ISPs are a concern. these can turn into an even more dangerous monopoly. can there be a new internet? home antennas? or maybe a way to somehow remove ISPs from the equation. a free flow.

Meshnet projects like Yggdrasil[1] and Hyperboria could be able to do this. I'm rooting for Yggdrasil at the moment.

[1]: https://yggdrasil-network.github.io/ and

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

#544

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

intended wrote: post #523
gamblor956 wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The modern polarization of the media began in the 1990s with Newt Gingrich...with help from his patron Rupert Murdoch, an ultra-conservative Australian who owned television stations, tabloids, and newspapers in the US, Australia, and the UK. Before them, politics was still very cutthroat but not polarized along party lines.

This- among side the cable news cycle effect were the genesis of today’s virus. Have to say — Murdoch has been remarkably influential as a massive negative impact on humanity

I could say the same about disney, their ownership of certain networks and their ability to influence politica to single handledly redefine trademark laws on behalf of the US government

Talk about impact.

Truth is in the eye of the beholder

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

#545

Post by SkyBelow »

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.

There is the solution of taking away power from the government to fix this. You would need to limit the punishment of people to be the same as corporations. For example, if a corporation commits negligence that kills people and gets fined 2% of its income, then the penalty for negligent homicide becomes a 2% yearly income with no jail time.

The problem is that right now the government will jail an individual and fine them many years worth of income but will not punish a corporation even a 1/100th of the penalty. Equalize that can be done by either granting or removing power from the government.

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

#546

Post by SkyBelow »

tzs wrote: post #341
lgleason wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

only if they stay neutral. This goes beyond that.

That's a common myth, and is completely wrong. In fact, it is almost 180 degrees wrong. Before section 230, there had been a couple of court cases. One held that a particular provider was not liable for anything posted on it, because it did not do any filtering or blocking at all. Another held that a different provider was liable for what users posted, because it did do some filtering and blocking. Congress felt thes…

And yet sites that aggregate illegal content are taken down by the government all the time, despite hosting none of it themselves. If you filter the wrong way, the government will hold you liable.

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

#548

Post by 101404 »

makomk wrote: post #446
acituan wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they have to act across borders. They don’t have to , they choose to , in the name of growth. If New York Times decided to operate in China too, deliver news in chinese about China, they would have the same problem.

What? The New York Times does deliver news in Chinese about China. Has done for quite a while.

Iirc NYT has been blocked in China for about 10 years, since that report about Wen Jiabao's family's money.

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

#549

Post by spaginal »

moftz wrote: post #457
techntoke wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is it reasonable to recommend a video from someone who argues the lockdown is not warranted So you're saying we should censor the President of the United States from Twitter?

No, they are saying that having a discussion about how to deal with the pandemic is a little more above board than someone arguing that it's a 5G conspiracy.

It was a little above board to argue that the Earth wasn’t the center of the universe at one time, and it was fervently argued, dissenters were dealt with harshly.

Not saying there is a logical equivalency here, but this type of thinking is exactly why free speech is important, not why it’s dangerous.

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

#550

Post by hwdug8278 »

Thorentis wrote: post #493
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…

Putting users in charge does not solve censorship problems. The majority opinion - if it is in favour of censorship - will censor competing opinions. Public ownership does not solve censorship. See: the CCP. Effective policing does not solve censorship. The police will be tools of whoever and whatever is funding them. The only way to combat censorship is through decentralised and distributed platforms that are made p…

Blockchain-based Facebook when?
Post reply on HN