4 ms·

> hosting an app on your platform is an endorsement of the content and the publisher of the app What's the context behind this claim?

51lver 8y ago
It seems to me that US domestic interest in excluding foreign objectionable content mean that the DMCA safeharbor provision's days are numbered.
- duskwuff 8y ago
  I don't see how that follows. OCILLA is exclusively concerned with copyright, not other content issues.
bduerst 8y ago
There isn't any. Infowars and company were banned from various content platforms for violating platform policies. i.e. There's flat earth content on Youtube, that doesn't mean Youtube endorses flat earth conspiracies.
- wu-ikkyu 8y ago
  The violated policies were in regards to hate speech and bullying, no? How is this not a far worse case of hateful bullying?
  - Zecar 8y ago
    Yeah apparently treating women as property doesn't violate Google's terms. Weird.
  - bduerst 8y ago
    It is reported as being used for that, yes, but that is not the same as the platform endorsing the content as the GP was claiming.
- amanzi 8y ago
  Not sure how you see a connection between flat-earthers and the Saudis' treatment of women? It's fine for people to believe the world is flat - it doesn't hurt anyone.
  - judge2020 8y ago
    This is in the context of using terminology that G/A lawyers and app approval personnel use, where no humanity is considered and everything strictly objective, eg "if <rule>, then application version denied". I'm sure Apple will take a stance now that their PR team has to deal with this, but without any eyes on an app, the app can throw moral values to the curb and will only be obligated to follow the approval guidelines.
  - bduerst 8y ago
    It's a reiteration of GP's fallacious argument, not an equivocacy to the app in the article. i.e. means id est, or "in other words".
buboard 8y ago
that corporates have decided to not uphold moral relativism.

51lver 8y ago

It seems to me that US domestic interest in excluding foreign objectionable content mean that the DMCA safeharbor provision's days are numbered.

duskwuff 8y ago
I don't see how that follows. OCILLA is exclusively concerned with copyright, not other content issues.

bduerst 8y ago

There isn't any. Infowars and company were banned from various content platforms for violating platform policies. i.e. There's flat earth content on Youtube, that doesn't mean Youtube endorses flat earth conspiracies.

wu-ikkyu 8y ago
The violated policies were in regards to hate speech and bullying, no? How is this not a far worse case of hateful bullying?
- Zecar 8y ago
  Yeah apparently treating women as property doesn't violate Google's terms. Weird.
- bduerst 8y ago
  It is reported as being used for that, yes, but that is not the same as the platform endorsing the content as the GP was claiming.
amanzi 8y ago
Not sure how you see a connection between flat-earthers and the Saudis' treatment of women? It's fine for people to believe the world is flat - it doesn't hurt anyone.
- judge2020 8y ago
  This is in the context of using terminology that G/A lawyers and app approval personnel use, where no humanity is considered and everything strictly objective, eg "if <rule>, then application version denied". I'm sure Apple will take a stance now that their PR team has to deal with this, but without any eyes on an app, the app can throw moral values to the curb and will only be obligated to follow the approval guidelines.
- bduerst 8y ago
  It's a reiteration of GP's fallacious argument, not an equivocacy to the app in the article. i.e. means id est, or "in other words".

buboard 8y ago

that corporates have decided to not uphold moral relativism.