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

811–820 of 996 posts

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

#811

Post by djsumdog »

gerbal wrote: post #649
djsumdog wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that's more reliable than media that fact-checks itself and issues corrections oh boy. I'm not even going to start in on this one. If you actually believe any of the "fact checks" done by your favourite news outlet, instead of going out and doing a lot of research from a bunch of different sources and viewing the full actual video of events in context, you're not getting the right picture; not even remotely the rig…

So what is reliable media? What can be trusted? Who do you trust? > We've never had a media that's more blatantly bias and unreliable than the one we have right now. Can you provide a citation or evidence of this claim?

I would highly recommend you watch the 2019 documentary Hoaxed. You're immediately going to dismiss it when you look it up because of the people in it; which goes to show how bad current media bias is.

I don't think everything from the documentary should be taken at face value, but it's still incredibly valuable in learning how the narrative has been so insanely skewed today.

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

#812

Post by feanaro »

avivo wrote: post #506
humanistbot wrote: post #47

The rationale they gave is that hate speech appears on these apps, because some of the microblogging sites that can be accessed via Fediverse have this kind of content. Based on this rationale, I look forward to Google Play removing Chrome, Firefox, and all other web browsers from the store as well.

This sort of decision by Google does make me rather uncomfortable (the entire situation is uncomfortable... https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/12/20691957/mastodon-decentr... ). But it's worth understanding why the situation may be a bit more complicated than is described above. What seems to be happening is not an absolute ban on Fediverse apps , but a ban on specific implementations that make it easy to join specific…

It's a bit silly to emphasize specific communities if this results in a ban of the entire app or network. ~all apps and networks have some communities like that. I don't think this is a complex question at all, this is just bad.

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

#813

Post by damnyou »

oehpr wrote: post #395
damnyou wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, any large no-censorship platform for humans will be swamped by Nazis. You could avoid being large — small, high-trust groups work perfectly fine without censorship. You could add more moderation (aka censorship), both platform-wide and within communities. Reddit seems to be heading in that direction. You could avoid being a platform. Some sites are inherently platforms, but does every site need comments? Or you…

I've got to finish going through The Culture series. I thought it was bold stroke to write a book series about a future where humans are domesticated by their own AI.

I think the "fully automated gay space luxury communism" depicted in the Culture series is the best future we can hope for. I wouldn't mind welcoming new robot overlords if it makes that possible.

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

#814

Post by dependenttypes »

savingsPossible wrote: post #682
dependenttypes wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which groups?

Does that matter? If op is lying, he or she is lying. But are some groups ok to threaten? Are some people ok to threaten?

It does matter because I would like to avoid said groups.

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

#815

Post by arrosenberg »

indigochill wrote: post #635
stinkytaco wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the side effect of allowing a small number of largely unregulated companies to control so much of our communications. TV and radio using public right-of-ways like radio bands are much more tightly regulated to ensure "equal time". That's not the case for social media or mobile platforms and I suspect any attempt to regulate those would be met with a great deal of resistance. Not the least complaint would be that…

I am very anti-social-media-regulation. Partly for the reasons you mention and partly because I see greater regulation balkanizing the internet and driving us increasingly farther from the promise of an egalitarian open internet. As for alternatives, I think we just need people to collectively decide that some other platform (ideally a decentralized one) is better than the incumbent. Facebook depends on its inertia.…

It seems like the obvious answer is modernized competitive market laws that prevent companies from leaving competition-mode and entering castle building-mode.

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

#816

Post by loup-vaillant »

nybble41 wrote: post #490
nescoiquid wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The equal time doctrine was eliminated in 1987: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine >> The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC e…

And for good reason. It doesn't make sense to mandate equal time for mainstream and fringe positions, rational proposals and ones riddled with contradictions. Either some government censor is responsible for deciding which positions are "serious" enough to warrant equal time or the media eventually gets overwhelmed with nonsense and conspiracy theories. If you want to see where the "fairness doctrine" leads, just hav…

A much better reason to get rid of equal time policies is because on the Internet, spectrum is effectively unlimited.

On TV or radio, you can only have so many stations. But with the internet, people can make a new web site and publish there, they're not limited by the available spectrum. Therefore, the kind of regulation that was needed in a constrained environment (broadcasted TV/Radio), does not really make sense when those constraints are lifted.

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

#817

Post by knolax »

orclev wrote: post #220
valvar wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's a question of what is meant by the term censorship. In the strictest sense, moderation and censorship are very often the same thing. If for instance, I post something terrible in a comment on here, and the administration of HN deletes that comment, then that's censorship. However, when most people talk about censorship they're using it not in the strict sense, but rather as a shorthand for someone violating thei…

> other extreme is the absolute censorship of someplace like China, where only permitted thoughts and expressions can be posted. The US and most of the rest of the world tends to fall somewhere in the middle.

It's like other countries only exist as rhetorical devices for most of HN. If you actually used the fediverse you'll see that there are plenty of Chinese users on it criticizing the state. It's the Western fediverse users being censored for wrongthink this time. Even the creator of Mastodon straight up doesn't believe in free speech wrt. to certain far right beliefs.

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

#818

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#819

Post by john-shaffer »

epistasis wrote: post #596
api wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Censorship always starts with unpopular speech. Historically it's been raunchy porn, religious blasphemy, and direct opposition to the state. Hate speech seems to be a new one that works well to sell censorship to liberals (who should know better).

This is only "censorship" in the sense that Fox News censors me by not giving me a 5 minute slot to advocate for Medicare For All. In reality, it's not state sponsored censorship at all, and it doesn't lead down any slippery slope. These claims of censorship are extremely selectively applied, to only certain types of political speech. I wonder why that is?

I don't watch Fox News, but even I know that Fox invites Democrats on to talk about their opinions. Here is an interview where a BLM leader rants for 5 minutes: https://youtu.be/FTjBJiXalHU?t=59

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

#820

Post by LegitShady »

kube-system wrote: post #657
LegitShady wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you, but the flip side is that they are not liable for the speech on their property due to an exception in section 230 of the communications decency act. If they have shown the ability to control speech on their platforms section 230 should be repealed and Google etc should be responsible for the content on their property like any other publisher.

Section 230 exists because it is operationally impractical for websites to affirmative approve of all, most, or even a significant portion or content before it is published by users. If there's anything that is an indisputable fact, it's that no high-volume platform with user content can proactively police their platform 100%. I think that's a silly rationale to say that they should be prohibited from manually polici…

I never said they should be prohibited from policing content merely that if they are capable of policing content they should be held liable for content on their platform like every other publisher.

There is no reason to give these censorious companies extra legal protections no other publisher has if they are censoring society. They have been protected by a regulation that is now causing intense centralizing of power in the hand of a few technocrats and it is actively harmful to the rest of society to so empower them over everyone else.

It is operationally impractical that society should be subject to Google's whims but Google not liable for Google's network content.

Post reply on HN