5 ms·

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 speci

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
  Sure. For historical context, it's hard to do better than http://www.paulgraham.com/re.html http://www.paulgraham.com/re.html: For consumers this new world meant the same choices everywhere, but only a few of them. When I grew up there were only 2 or 3 of most things, and since they were all aiming at the middle of the market there wasn't much to differentiate them. One of the most important instances of this phenomenon was in TV. Here there were 3 choices: NBC, CBS, and ABC. Plus public TV for eggheads and communists. The programs the 3 networks offered were indistinguishable. In fact, here there was a triple pressure toward the center. If one show did try something daring, local affiliates in conservative markets would make them stop. Plus since TVs were expensive whole families watched the same shows together, so they had to be suitable for everyone. And not only did everyone get the same thing, they got it at the same time. It's difficult to imagine now, but every night tens of millions of families would sit down together in front of their TV set watching the same show, at the same time, as their next door neighbors. What happens now with the Super Bowl used to happen every night. We were literally in sync. -- Android's Play Store, iPhone's App Store, Reddit and HN are all channels that define our generation. When you point out someone's project to a coworker and they say they already saw it on HN, that means you're both being influenced by the same channels. It molds you far more profoundly than most of us like to admit to ourselves. Hacking was, briefly, a respite from this. When computers weren't synonymous with business, you had to love it. You invested your time and money into it because it fascinated you, not because it was a good investment. You also had access to the entire ecosystem. You could see what everything was doing, and how everything worked. If you didn't like something, you could just change it. In return, you owned everything. You were free to take whatever you needed and to contribute however you could. Ideas and skill alone determined the outcome. It wasn't quite that simple; ideas still had to be promoted. https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs-paper.html https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs-paper.html But they could be promoted and they could win against the objection of any higher authority. In fact, it seems strange that any authority could ever have been in a position to decide Emacs' fate. Yet that is our present world. Apple doesn't like you? Gone. Ditto for Google. These are the authorities you answer to. You obey masters; we all do.
  - elipsey 9y ago
problems 9y ago
On Android you don't even need to hack anything to install the Gab app, just tick a box in the UI and download the APK. Many gambling sites already do the same. It strikes me that their argument on iOS might be even stronger given the relative unpopularity of jailbreaking devices these days and the complete lack of sideloading functionality for non-developers.
- lj3 9y ago
  That's the part I find so weird about this. Wouldn't Apple have been a better company to sue? Gab would have a stronger case and the benefits of getting on the app store would be larger than the benefits of getting on the Play store.
sandov 9y ago
Are you implying that Stallman would support the regulation of App Stores? Has he supported similar things in the past?. He has critiziced what he calls "extreme capitalism" in the past. But I highly doubt that he would support a regulation that could potentialy undermine freedom (not only economic freedom) and harm not only big companies but also small players.
lj3 9y ago
Here's an equally important question: where did you land on the court case that ruled a christian cake maker couldn't refuse service to a gay couple based on their faith? The question here extends far beyond the domain of tech. Are people allowed to choose whom they associate and do business with or aren't they? Does having a strong network effect influence that decision? What if that baker colluded with every other bakery in town to make sure nobody would bake that couple a cake? We've seen that behavior recently among web registrars. In my humble opinion, I don't like the precedent the gab lawsuit is trying to set. I'm for free association, but against active collusion. They're only suing Google and they're not alleging collusion between multiple parties (like Apple). The registrar thing is a whole other ball of wax. One company has a monopoly on domain registrars. That's going to prove to be a big problem for people who are not on the Right one day very soon.
- dropit_sphere 9y ago
  10/10 A+++ for this comment and the juxtaposition it creates, because it highlights the contradiction that proves this is thorny. I'm a scary far-right kind of guy, and am predictably pro-cakemaker and pro-gab. My well-adjusted and empathetic counterparts are presumably anti-cakemaker and anti-gab. And yet we all seem to be having some difficulty with consistency here.
- pj_mukh 9y ago
  The cake made for a gay couple doesn't have the stamp of the cake maker on it. And nobody is forcing the cake maker to advertise/display/host the fact that they make cakes for gay weddings. Also, more importantly, the courts aren't making the cake maker put on violent propaganda on the fondant :/. I'm hoping the courts can see the difference when judging "free association" and just throw this out.

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
Sure. For historical context, it's hard to do better than http://www.paulgraham.com/re.html http://www.paulgraham.com/re.html: For consumers this new world meant the same choices everywhere, but only a few of them. When I grew up there were only 2 or 3 of most things, and since they were all aiming at the middle of the market there wasn't much to differentiate them. One of the most important instances of this phenomenon was in TV. Here there were 3 choices: NBC, CBS, and ABC. Plus public TV for eggheads and communists. The programs the 3 networks offered were indistinguishable. In fact, here there was a triple pressure toward the center. If one show did try something daring, local affiliates in conservative markets would make them stop. Plus since TVs were expensive whole families watched the same shows together, so they had to be suitable for everyone. And not only did everyone get the same thing, they got it at the same time. It's difficult to imagine now, but every night tens of millions of families would sit down together in front of their TV set watching the same show, at the same time, as their next door neighbors. What happens now with the Super Bowl used to happen every night. We were literally in sync. -- Android's Play Store, iPhone's App Store, Reddit and HN are all channels that define our generation. When you point out someone's project to a coworker and they say they already saw it on HN, that means you're both being influenced by the same channels. It molds you far more profoundly than most of us like to admit to ourselves. Hacking was, briefly, a respite from this. When computers weren't synonymous with business, you had to love it. You invested your time and money into it because it fascinated you, not because it was a good investment. You also had access to the entire ecosystem. You could see what everything was doing, and how everything worked. If you didn't like something, you could just change it. In return, you owned everything. You were free to take whatever you needed and to contribute however you could. Ideas and skill alone determined the outcome. It wasn't quite that simple; ideas still had to be promoted. https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs-paper.html https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs-paper.html But they could be promoted and they could win against the objection of any higher authority. In fact, it seems strange that any authority could ever have been in a position to decide Emacs' fate. Yet that is our present world. Apple doesn't like you? Gone. Ditto for Google. These are the authorities you answer to. You obey masters; we all do.
- elipsey 9y ago

problems 9y ago

On Android you don't even need to hack anything to install the Gab app, just tick a box in the UI and download the APK. Many gambling sites already do the same. It strikes me that their argument on iOS might be even stronger given the relative unpopularity of jailbreaking devices these days and the complete lack of sideloading functionality for non-developers.

lj3 9y ago
That's the part I find so weird about this. Wouldn't Apple have been a better company to sue? Gab would have a stronger case and the benefits of getting on the app store would be larger than the benefits of getting on the Play store.

sandov 9y ago

Are you implying that Stallman would support the regulation of App Stores? Has he supported similar things in the past?. He has critiziced what he calls "extreme capitalism" in the past. But I highly doubt that he would support a regulation that could potentialy undermine freedom (not only economic freedom) and harm not only big companies but also small players.

lj3 9y ago

Here's an equally important question: where did you land on the court case that ruled a christian cake maker couldn't refuse service to a gay couple based on their faith? The question here extends far beyond the domain of tech. Are people allowed to choose whom they associate and do business with or aren't they? Does having a strong network effect influence that decision? What if that baker colluded with every other bakery in town to make sure nobody would bake that couple a cake? We've seen that behavior recently among web registrars. In my humble opinion, I don't like the precedent the gab lawsuit is trying to set. I'm for free association, but against active collusion. They're only suing Google and they're not alleging collusion between multiple parties (like Apple). The registrar thing is a whole other ball of wax. One company has a monopoly on domain registrars. That's going to prove to be a big problem for people who are not on the Right one day very soon.

dropit_sphere 9y ago
10/10 A+++ for this comment and the juxtaposition it creates, because it highlights the contradiction that proves this is thorny. I'm a scary far-right kind of guy, and am predictably pro-cakemaker and pro-gab. My well-adjusted and empathetic counterparts are presumably anti-cakemaker and anti-gab. And yet we all seem to be having some difficulty with consistency here.
pj_mukh 9y ago
The cake made for a gay couple doesn't have the stamp of the cake maker on it. And nobody is forcing the cake maker to advertise/display/host the fact that they make cakes for gay weddings. Also, more importantly, the courts aren't making the cake maker put on violent propaganda on the fondant :/. I'm hoping the courts can see the difference when judging "free association" and just throw this out.