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

551–560 of 577 posts

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

#551

Post by whatshisface »

StavrosK wrote: post #418
jimmySixDOF wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can try Pocket Casts [1] who are my favorite and only Of course that's assuming that they don't get the same play store treatment from GOOG It's a little too ironic that Goggle, who has countless times made the argument that they aren't responsible/liable for what their users do on a service ("honestly senator its just a platform we provide"), and then here they are the ones calling for some downstream accountabi…

That's not a solution. Instead, we should switch to alternative stores like F-Droid: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/de.danoeh.antennapod/ F-Droid only lists FOSS software, but Google sorely needs competition. Unfortunately, any alternative store is unlikely to succeed since the users only have incentive to use it when Google misbehaves, so all Google has to do is misbehave rarely enough to kill the alternatives off.

F-Droid is great, it has been years since I've had to use the app store.

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

#553

Post by AnthonyMouse »

gamblor956 wrote: post #506
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It didn't start after Trump's election. It started with the "cancel culture" thing a couple of years before that and pressure on companies to participate in the war on crimethink. I tend to think that it contributed to Trump's election, because it has the effect of creating massive polarization. You can't segregate sites by viewpoint and thought filter everything in favor of one side or the other and expect it not to…

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.

> 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.

That was certainly a thing that happened, but as far as I know Rupert Murdoch never got Gore Vidal blacklisted by book publishers or whatever.

It's one thing to say your piece, something else to stop the other guy saying theirs.

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

#554

Post by jeegsy »

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.

From your mouth to God's ears friend. I can't tell you enough how maddening it is to observe the way technology has evolved since the time I first encountered the net in 1998. My vision of the future was and remains a server in every home, powerful enough to handle all your digital communication/entertainment needs. Everyone with their website and domain, email etc. What a world that would have been! Well so much for that. All we did was bring back the AOL model in a different skin. The AOL guys must be so mad now, they were just too ahead of their time!

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

#555

Post by thaumasiotes »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #473
thaumasiotes wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Section 230 provides immunity to Google and similar for content posted by other users and services. To be more clear, Google and other web publishers already enjoy immunity for content posted by other users and services. That is the default state of things under American law. What section 230 does is preserve their immunity even if they exercise editorial discretion over some of the content that other users/service…

This is not true. The default state of US law was that those who published without moderation were protected, and those that did moderate were not. Section 230 was created specifically because publishers who moderated user generated comments had been successfully sued for defamation [0]. Section 230 did not preserve any rights at all, it created entirely new ones. Companies were previously able to enjoy common carrie…

> This is not true. The default state of US law was that those who published without moderation were protected, and those that did moderate were not. Section 230 was created specifically because publishers who moderated user generated comments had been successfully sued for defamation [0].

> Section 230 did not preserve any rights at all, it created entirely new ones. Companies were previously able to enjoy common carrier immunities, if they behaved like common carriers. Section 230 granted them those immunities without giving them the obligation to behave like common carriers.

It's kind of funny for you to open with "this is not true" and then go on to agree with everything I said. What part did you think wasn't true?

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

#556

Post by ksk »

scarface74 wrote: post #467
ksk wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes, we can write letters and stuff, but that doesn't really allow us to hold them accountable Public protests/rallies/marches do bring about change in government/government policies. Many politicians do care about their public image, and are susceptible to manipulation based on public pressure. >Compare that with private sector. Even for entities like Google, we've got huge latitude to vote with our feet. We can us…

So now we need the government to intervene for people's own good because people willingly give their money to Big Tech?

The government is a made-up construct we created to serve us. What the government should or shouldn't do is up to us.

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

#557

Post by jtuente »

gamblor956 wrote: post #506
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It didn't start after Trump's election. It started with the "cancel culture" thing a couple of years before that and pressure on companies to participate in the war on crimethink. I tend to think that it contributed to Trump's election, because it has the effect of creating massive polarization. You can't segregate sites by viewpoint and thought filter everything in favor of one side or the other and expect it not to…

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.

It seems very similar to McCarthyism and the anti-communist messages from the late '40s and early '50s like the "loyalty review boards", just with wider media available in the modern world. McCarthyism also adopted similar conspiracy theories concerning vaccinations, mental health care, and fluoridation.

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

#558

Post by ksk »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #475
ksk wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes, we can write letters and stuff, but that doesn't really allow us to hold them accountable Public protests/rallies/marches do bring about change in government/government policies. Many politicians do care about their public image, and are susceptible to manipulation based on public pressure. >Compare that with private sector. Even for entities like Google, we've got huge latitude to vote with our feet. We can us…

In the political arena, the status quo is that each voter must choose one of: A) I must vote for the Democrat candidate because the Republicans are evil and they'll subjugate women and minorities. B) I must vote for the Republicans because the Democrats are evil and they'll turn us into a bunch of commies. There is no room in today's political debate for even mention of finer points of free speech philosophy, when al…

>And this is no less true in the private sector.

Well, of course there are nuances to anything, but CEOs are not elected by the public. They don't have "opponent" CEOs trying to milk their scandals in public ads for getting a job. Its different. Anyway, this conversation has totally gone off topic ! We'll just have to agree to disagree on some things, although I suspect we have more points that we agree on than not.

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

#559

Post by jeegsy »

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 solution to this as I see this is that these platforms allow everything. Only block illegal (local law) content and spam. Provide users with powerful blocking/filtering tools. The only influence they can have on content is monetization/advertising. They are free to be preferential with who they wish to monetize. Thats the best compromise I can think off.

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

#560

Post by mdaniel »

zouhair wrote: post #174
ipsum2 wrote: post #3

My favorite (and only) podcasting app. I hope someone who works at Google reads this and flag it internally. This quote really sums up how ridiculous Google is being: > What Google is asking of Podcast Addict would be comparable to Google asking a web browser app to remove references to all the websites and social media posts that reference the coronavirus unless the reference comes from an official government entity…

I have yet to find better then AntennaPod[0] [0]: https://github.com/AntennaPod/AntennaPod/

I'm glad it works for you. I actually tried to switch in an effort to "more FOSS" my life and ended up compiling a concrete list of usability problems that made using Antenna Pod frustrating for me. And that "usability" word has traditionally been the difference in my life between a commercial product and a FOSS one

* Podcast Addict offers auto skip intro seconds, auto skip outro seconds -- and the seconds setting is per podcast

* P.A. offers "stop after episode" if the sleep timer is active, and also allows not marking the episode as played if that "artificial stop" is active

* in Antenna Pod, "delete and remove from queue" does not clear it from the now playing bar

* the "auto download" appears to be opt-in, not opt-out, meaning one must set it for all 85 podcasts

* the bamboo menu doesn't include "delete" for an episode

* and a few more UI nits that bugged me

This isn't a rant, but rather an observation that the Podcast Addict developer wakes up every day thinking about how to make P.A. better, and that doesn't seem to be true for Antenna Pod

Post reply on HN