7 ms·

While I don't think Gab will be successful, I'm glad they're suing. Anything you can find on Gab you will also find on Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook, and scores of

While I don't think Gab will be successful, I'm glad they're suing. Anything you can find on Gab you will also find on Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook, and scores of other apps in the Play store. Google is wrong to treat one app differently than the others for what seems to be purely political reasons.

daxorid 9y ago
Edit: Derp. HN needs to bring back the delete feature for total failure to grasp context such as mine.
- minimaxir 9y ago
  Suing Google will use up the majority of that $1 million.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    Plus the comment is contextually about the lawsuit, not about the company.
  - staticautomatic 9y ago
    Hardly. The case will be taken on at least partial contingency and likely financed by a litigation funding company.
    - tryingagainbro 9y ago
      Is there a chance of actually getting money from Google? The precedent fear will guarantee that Google will fight this tooth and nail. Pro-bono I could see firms taking it, lots of press and the chance of being defined as a top tech-related litigation company. Or Google's many enemies could finance this.
      - staticautomatic 9y ago
        Sure. Like most companies, Google settles plenty of lawsuits and only tries them when it has to or believes it has a high probability of winning. Precedent fear guarantees nothing. You could have said that about any number of cases that Google has settled. There is zero chance that a law firm would take this pro-bono, regardless of the perceived marketing benefits, because it's simply too expensive. It will not be financed by Google's enemies. If it's financed, it will be by a litigation financing company like Burford or Bentham IMF or something.
  - TheCoreh 9y ago
    It depends. Some lawyers might be interested in tackling that "pro bono": Imagine having sued and won against Google in a high profile case that totally changes an industry, that would be a big plus for your resume
- Spivak 9y ago
  Right, they are one of many social networks and forums that cater to niche audiences and I have no doubt that they will be successful by those standards but the parent means that it's unlikely that they will become a 'mainstream' social network.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  Hmm? Your comment pointed out that Gab is actually doing quite well: 2k customers paying $6/mo, a million in investment, six employees. If they can get their growth rate up to 5% per week, it would be a meteoric startup. It's a good observation.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
sillysaurus3 9y ago
Is it illegal to curate the Play Store? It's an important question that might define the future generation of programmers. Hacking used to mean something specific: it meant you were free of channels. It didn't matter if you owned a channel when people were tinkering in their basement on something they owned. Now it's all interconnected, and questions of ownership are critically important. I respect Stallman, but he was hard to take seriously. Then, suddenly, even his outlandish ideas seem pescient.
- TCM 9y ago
  Tim Bray is also precient when he wrote about being a sharecropper: See http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/07/12/WebsThePlace http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/07/12/WebsThePla...
- gravy 9y ago
  Of course it's not illegal, its Google's own channel for app delivery/purchase/managing/etc. But if they're going to police it based on politics, then they should say so upfront and not pretend to be unbiased.
  - tryingagainbro 9y ago
    Depends a lot on market share as well. Google can now ruin you on Android too, as if G search wasn't enough. With power comes responsibility, tomorrow they'll ban something else. https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-share/os https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-share/os 80+% market share in shipped phones, although that probably includes Android forks with non-Google Play stores (in China maybe?)
- elipsey 9y ago
  > Hacking used to mean something specific: it meant you were free of channels Can you explain in greater detail what you mean by this?
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
sotojuan 9y ago
I always found it weird how Apple allows reddit and Tumblr apps but does not allow 4chan apps - all three have the same amount and kind of porn.
- Helloworldboy 9y ago
  There is a 4chan app now called TheChan. It works really well too.
  - sotojuan 9y ago
    I see. Little too late as I don't browse it any more, but thanks :-)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
wallace_f 9y ago
Gab's founder, the Trump-supporting Andrew Torba, was also kicked out of Y-Combinator's network. It was because, if not officially, probably also for his politics. Recently a popular thread here discussed a child murderer whom had been admitted to Harvard, but they later renegged. Many people echoed the argument that: 'if someone isn't allowed to participate in society like a normal person, then why even let them out of prison, because it only otherwise encourages them towards crime?' What should we do about people who are not allowed to participate in society like normal people, but have committed no crime? If we want to remain logically consistent, shouldn't we lock up the Trump supporters with the baby killers?
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  Many people echoed the argument that: 'if someone isn't allowed to participate in society like a normal person, then why even let them out of prison, because it only otherwise encourages them towards crime?' He murdered a child. If Harvard doesn't want to allow a child murder into their institution, it's not a crime against that person. That person can have a normal life, just at Grand Junction State (or I'm sure there's a million other colleges other than Harvard that will accept him). There are consequences to actions. If the consequence of murdering a child is you don't get to go to Harvard, it's not a tragedy. Go do something useful with your life, other than going to Harvard or killing kids, yeah?
  - jcriddle4 9y ago
    Interesting that you assumed it was a "he". It was the child's mother: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/opinion/harvard-michelle-jones-prison.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/opinion/harvard-michelle-...
    - aaron-lebo 9y ago
      Thanks, that's a crazy story.
- rfrey 9y ago
  > It was because, if not officially, probably also for his politics. That's a serious claim to make without evidence. Perhaps you have evidence and you're not sharing it. If that's the case you should ask yourself why you're not comfortable sharing that evidence, and if that discomfort should apply to making the claim at all. Alternately and more likely, you have no evidence, in which case you should certainly not make such a claim.
nthuser 9y ago
Google wants developers to demonstrate that they take active steps against such content. The TOS of the apps you listed prohibit such content and they do remove the content if it gets reported. I doubt if Gab operates that way.
- jcriddle4 9y ago
  Yes but Google can always decide that because of x or x + 1 you are not in compliance and the real reason is your politics but they will never admit to it. Because Gab has more conservatives one real question is google always going to find reasons to deny when some of the same stuff is happening on twitter etc? Also does google get to decide that something say fails TOS because of support of say someone like Trump just not as famous? Does google get to decide what "such content" is? Does google get to decide who gab bans from gab's network or just which posts are censored?
bllguo 9y ago
this seems overly simplistic. Surely the concentration of such offensive content is higher on Gab than on tumblr, twitter, facebook, etc. And intent should matter as well, no?

daxorid 9y ago

Edit: Derp. HN needs to bring back the delete feature for total failure to grasp context such as mine.

minimaxir 9y ago
Suing Google will use up the majority of that $1 million.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Plus the comment is contextually about the lawsuit, not about the company.
- staticautomatic 9y ago
  Hardly. The case will be taken on at least partial contingency and likely financed by a litigation funding company.
  - tryingagainbro 9y ago
    Is there a chance of actually getting money from Google? The precedent fear will guarantee that Google will fight this tooth and nail. Pro-bono I could see firms taking it, lots of press and the chance of being defined as a top tech-related litigation company. Or Google's many enemies could finance this.
    - staticautomatic 9y ago
      Sure. Like most companies, Google settles plenty of lawsuits and only tries them when it has to or believes it has a high probability of winning. Precedent fear guarantees nothing. You could have said that about any number of cases that Google has settled. There is zero chance that a law firm would take this pro-bono, regardless of the perceived marketing benefits, because it's simply too expensive. It will not be financed by Google's enemies. If it's financed, it will be by a litigation financing company like Burford or Bentham IMF or something.
- TheCoreh 9y ago
  It depends. Some lawyers might be interested in tackling that "pro bono": Imagine having sued and won against Google in a high profile case that totally changes an industry, that would be a big plus for your resume
Spivak 9y ago
Right, they are one of many social networks and forums that cater to niche audiences and I have no doubt that they will be successful by those standards but the parent means that it's unlikely that they will become a 'mainstream' social network.
sillysaurus3 9y ago
Hmm? Your comment pointed out that Gab is actually doing quite well: 2k customers paying $6/mo, a million in investment, six employees. If they can get their growth rate up to 5% per week, it would be a meteoric startup. It's a good observation.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

sillysaurus3 9y ago

Is it illegal to curate the Play Store? It's an important question that might define the future generation of programmers. Hacking used to mean something specific: it meant you were free of channels. It didn't matter if you owned a channel when people were tinkering in their basement on something they owned. Now it's all interconnected, and questions of ownership are critically important. I respect Stallman, but he was hard to take seriously. Then, suddenly, even his outlandish ideas seem pescient.

TCM 9y ago
Tim Bray is also precient when he wrote about being a sharecropper: See http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/07/12/WebsThePlace http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/07/12/WebsThePla...
gravy 9y ago
Of course it's not illegal, its Google's own channel for app delivery/purchase/managing/etc. But if they're going to police it based on politics, then they should say so upfront and not pretend to be unbiased.
- tryingagainbro 9y ago
  Depends a lot on market share as well. Google can now ruin you on Android too, as if G search wasn't enough. With power comes responsibility, tomorrow they'll ban something else. https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-share/os https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-share/os 80+% market share in shipped phones, although that probably includes Android forks with non-Google Play stores (in China maybe?)
elipsey 9y ago
> Hacking used to mean something specific: it meant you were free of channels Can you explain in greater detail what you mean by this?
- sillysaurus3 9y ago

sotojuan 9y ago

I always found it weird how Apple allows reddit and Tumblr apps but does not allow 4chan apps - all three have the same amount and kind of porn.

Helloworldboy 9y ago
There is a 4chan app now called TheChan. It works really well too.
- sotojuan 9y ago
  I see. Little too late as I don't browse it any more, but thanks :-)

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

wallace_f 9y ago

Gab's founder, the Trump-supporting Andrew Torba, was also kicked out of Y-Combinator's network. It was because, if not officially, probably also for his politics. Recently a popular thread here discussed a child murderer whom had been admitted to Harvard, but they later renegged. Many people echoed the argument that: 'if someone isn't allowed to participate in society like a normal person, then why even let them out of prison, because it only otherwise encourages them towards crime?' What should we do about people who are not allowed to participate in society like normal people, but have committed no crime? If we want to remain logically consistent, shouldn't we lock up the Trump supporters with the baby killers?

aaron-lebo 9y ago
Many people echoed the argument that: 'if someone isn't allowed to participate in society like a normal person, then why even let them out of prison, because it only otherwise encourages them towards crime?' He murdered a child. If Harvard doesn't want to allow a child murder into their institution, it's not a crime against that person. That person can have a normal life, just at Grand Junction State (or I'm sure there's a million other colleges other than Harvard that will accept him). There are consequences to actions. If the consequence of murdering a child is you don't get to go to Harvard, it's not a tragedy. Go do something useful with your life, other than going to Harvard or killing kids, yeah?
- jcriddle4 9y ago
  Interesting that you assumed it was a "he". It was the child's mother: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/opinion/harvard-michelle-jones-prison.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/opinion/harvard-michelle-...
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    Thanks, that's a crazy story.
rfrey 9y ago
> It was because, if not officially, probably also for his politics. That's a serious claim to make without evidence. Perhaps you have evidence and you're not sharing it. If that's the case you should ask yourself why you're not comfortable sharing that evidence, and if that discomfort should apply to making the claim at all. Alternately and more likely, you have no evidence, in which case you should certainly not make such a claim.

nthuser 9y ago

Google wants developers to demonstrate that they take active steps against such content. The TOS of the apps you listed prohibit such content and they do remove the content if it gets reported. I doubt if Gab operates that way.

jcriddle4 9y ago
Yes but Google can always decide that because of x or x + 1 you are not in compliance and the real reason is your politics but they will never admit to it. Because Gab has more conservatives one real question is google always going to find reasons to deny when some of the same stuff is happening on twitter etc? Also does google get to decide that something say fails TOS because of support of say someone like Trump just not as famous? Does google get to decide what "such content" is? Does google get to decide who gab bans from gab's network or just which posts are censored?

bllguo 9y ago

this seems overly simplistic. Surely the concentration of such offensive content is higher on Gab than on tumblr, twitter, facebook, etc. And intent should matter as well, no?