7 ms·

This is like Google banning the YouTube app from the play store for having videos about covid that aren't from government sources. Insane stuff.

cm2187 6y ago
Isn't it even worse? Does the app hosts the podcast or merely references them / plays them? More like banning a browser from the store as the browser may be used to display inapropriate content.
numpad0 6y ago
I see your intent is an analogy but that’s exactly what they did in Jan-Mar timeframe. They suspended people for acknowledging the virus’ existence. Just CCP style.
- ImprobableTruth 6y ago
  Are you sure? I thought they were just demonetizing them (which is still bad, but less bad)
laumars 6y ago
That’s an interesting example because YouTube are also removing COVID-19 content from some disreputable sources. To be clear: I’m not defending Google, I also don’t agree with the podcast takedown.
- jeltz 6y ago
  I found this very quickly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgln8rjuIMU&feature=share https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgln8rjuIMU&feature=share
  - laumars 6y ago
    I didn't say their algorithm was flawless, just that they are removing content. Here's a few citations: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52388586 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52388586 https://fee.org/articles/youtube-to-ban-content-that-contradicts-who-on-covid-19-despite-the-un-agency-s-catastrophic-track-record-of-misinformation/ https://fee.org/articles/youtube-to-ban-content-that-contrad... https://www.theblaze.com/news/youtube-will-remove-any-coronavirus-content-that-goes-against-who-recommendations https://www.theblaze.com/news/youtube-will-remove-any-corona... https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/youtube-ramps-up-action-to-remove-covid-19-misinformation/576577/ https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/youtube-ramps-up-actio... These haven't been cherry picked, they're the top 4 results on a DDG search. Your example only demonstrates that you don't understand the difficulty in censoring content on social platforms as enormous as YouTube; not that Google don't have a policy that prohibits such content.
    - jeltz 6y ago
      The one I linked is from a Swedish conspiracy theory channel with 16k subscribers and it has been up for 2 months, gotten 40k views (huge for Swedish language content) and does not try to hide itself at all ("WakeUpGlobe SE" and uses "corona" in the title). It would be trivial for a human to find this.
      - laumars 6y ago
        You can't blanket ban terms otherwise you'd end up accidentally banning far more false positives than a few podcast apps. For example "corona" is a pretty broad term -- it would be like banning Nazi content but using the word "German" from "National Socialist German Workers' Party" as your identifier then wondering why half the German language videos disappear. > It would be trivial for a human to find this. Someone literate in Swedish maybe (to gather the context of those key words) but it isn't humans which do this. Google are big into automation to the extent that they have machines doing their review. You might consider that wrong but then you have to ask yourself how many humans would it take to moderate a platform as large as YouTube. I bet you that whatever number you come up wouldn't be enough and someone else would say "I found another video that was trivial to find, Google don't hire enough platform moderators!" Plus it's a pretty horrible job being a professional moderator and spending your whole day reviewing the dregs of society. I've read reports where people who've done it had said it's had a very real negative impact on their mental health. As I said earlier, fixing problems like this at scale is insanely hard. It's one of those things that might seem easy at a superficial level but it's fraught with errors and you can guarantee that whatever decision the moderator makes (be that human or algorithm) someone will be unhappy and claim it's not fair.
- sp332 6y ago
  But they're not asking the podcast hosts to remove the content. They're penalizing a podcast player app, which has no ability to remove bad content.
  - laumars 6y ago
    Again, I didn’t say I agree with the apps removal, just that Google we’re at least being internally consistent. With regards to the app removal, do we know it is a Google management decision and not the work of an overzealous app reviewer or an algorithm (the latter being the way Google usually operate)? The reason I talk about internal consistency is because it is hard getting the right balance between removing stuff that should be vs stuff that shouldn’t and that problem is only magnified when when doing so at scale. So if this were a management then I totally understand the pitchforks but if it’s a false positive an in algorithm then hopefully Google will rectify and we can all go back to moaning about Electron or whatever the next meme is.
    - sp332 6y ago
      I disagree that they are being consistent. An almost-equivalent move would be suspending the entire YouTube app, and making a new entry in the Play Store after they have removed all offending content. But at least YouTube has some ability to remove content, so that would actually make more sense than suspending Podcast Addict which plays third-party-hosted media.
      - laumars 6y ago
        They’re suspending accounts on YouTube and pulling videos, just like they’re doing with apps on their Play Store. They can’t moderate the podcasts posted but they can moderate the apps and videos posted. So of course it’s internally consistent. The real question is whether it should be consistently upheld without exceptions and the answer to that is obviously “no” because some apps are hubs to user curated content like that podcast app is. As for your comment about them suspending their entire YouTube app, you talk as if this was a management exec decision rather than rouge judgement that will inevitably get overturned. Google isn’t a single entity. It’s a collection of people and algorithms all making their own judgements based on Google’s policies. Sometimes they miss stuff they should moderate and sometimes they get overzealous and remove content they shouldn’t. There is such a large grey area and scope for personal judgement that you have to expect some unpopular verdicts from time to time. It’s shit but no two situations are identical so it’s a problem that’s impossible to avoid. The real tell is whether Google reverse the decision once the complaint gets escalated.
sneak 6y ago
Google's rules only apply to their competitors in the attention economy.
solarkraft 6y ago
> Insane stuff Google is actually applying the same standard in this case (or at least attempting to). They're also fighting conspiracy theories on YouTube.
- laumars 6y ago
  It's a great pity all the factual comments about YouTube's COVID-19 video removal policy (or "censorship" depending on your viewpoint) are being down voted while all the anti-Google rhetoric is floating above it. I get it's cool to hate Google these days and I'm not saying I agree with the removal of the podcast app, however the removal of that app is consistent with how Google have been maintaining some of their other platforms too. This isn't a theoretical point either, it's been well documented in the news and talked to death on here too. So regardless of my opinion of Google (and to be clear: I'm not fan either) I still can't help feeling that all the "Google are hypocrites" remarks being made are completely ignorant of the fact that Google are actually removing content on YouTube as well. Here's a bunch of citations that proves this and the GP comments are actually correct despite the down votes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23220864 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23220864
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    It's a great pity that you treat legitimate disagreement as mindless anger. "They are removing content on youtube." is a true factual statement. "They are applying the same standard." is not. The motivation may be the same, but the types of removal are very different. As long as their own podcasting app is up in its current form, there is a very good argument that they're not being consistent.
    - laumars 6y ago
      > It's a great pity that you treat legitimate disagreement as mindless anger. I’m not talking about disagreement of these posts (there’s nothing to disagree, the comments were factually accurate), I’m talking about the comments where people say stuff like “Google's rules only apply to their competitors“, which clearly isn’t true (as I’ve proven). I also don’t agree with you exaggerating my comments to claim I was accusing people of being mindless and agree when I said no such thing. > The motivation may be the same, but the types of removal are very different. As long as their own podcasting app is up in its current form, there is a very good argument that they're not being consistent. When splitting hairs there’s a risk you sub-divide the problem so finely that you then can argue nothing is equivalent and I think that’s what’s happening here. There’s a saying that goes something like “don’t attributed malice to acts of incompetence” which applies here. People are quick to jump on the offensive when it’s clearly a policy that Google follow on their other platforms and it might well be a decision that is overturned upon review. I explain this point more eloquently here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23222167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23222167
janova 6y ago
How is it that this live feed is allowed? "Coronavirus Live Map and realtime counter - Latest worldwide COVID-19 stats and figures." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRy5_KpPxyM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRy5_KpPxyM And there're tons more when you search "covid 19 stats" in YT

cm2187 6y ago

Isn't it even worse? Does the app hosts the podcast or merely references them / plays them? More like banning a browser from the store as the browser may be used to display inapropriate content.

numpad0 6y ago

I see your intent is an analogy but that’s exactly what they did in Jan-Mar timeframe. They suspended people for acknowledging the virus’ existence. Just CCP style.

ImprobableTruth 6y ago
Are you sure? I thought they were just demonetizing them (which is still bad, but less bad)

laumars 6y ago

That’s an interesting example because YouTube are also removing COVID-19 content from some disreputable sources. To be clear: I’m not defending Google, I also don’t agree with the podcast takedown.

jeltz 6y ago
I found this very quickly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgln8rjuIMU&feature=share https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgln8rjuIMU&feature=share
- laumars 6y ago
  I didn't say their algorithm was flawless, just that they are removing content. Here's a few citations: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52388586 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52388586 https://fee.org/articles/youtube-to-ban-content-that-contradicts-who-on-covid-19-despite-the-un-agency-s-catastrophic-track-record-of-misinformation/ https://fee.org/articles/youtube-to-ban-content-that-contrad... https://www.theblaze.com/news/youtube-will-remove-any-coronavirus-content-that-goes-against-who-recommendations https://www.theblaze.com/news/youtube-will-remove-any-corona... https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/youtube-ramps-up-action-to-remove-covid-19-misinformation/576577/ https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/youtube-ramps-up-actio... These haven't been cherry picked, they're the top 4 results on a DDG search. Your example only demonstrates that you don't understand the difficulty in censoring content on social platforms as enormous as YouTube; not that Google don't have a policy that prohibits such content.
  - jeltz 6y ago
    The one I linked is from a Swedish conspiracy theory channel with 16k subscribers and it has been up for 2 months, gotten 40k views (huge for Swedish language content) and does not try to hide itself at all ("WakeUpGlobe SE" and uses "corona" in the title). It would be trivial for a human to find this.
    - laumars 6y ago
      You can't blanket ban terms otherwise you'd end up accidentally banning far more false positives than a few podcast apps. For example "corona" is a pretty broad term -- it would be like banning Nazi content but using the word "German" from "National Socialist German Workers' Party" as your identifier then wondering why half the German language videos disappear. > It would be trivial for a human to find this. Someone literate in Swedish maybe (to gather the context of those key words) but it isn't humans which do this. Google are big into automation to the extent that they have machines doing their review. You might consider that wrong but then you have to ask yourself how many humans would it take to moderate a platform as large as YouTube. I bet you that whatever number you come up wouldn't be enough and someone else would say "I found another video that was trivial to find, Google don't hire enough platform moderators!" Plus it's a pretty horrible job being a professional moderator and spending your whole day reviewing the dregs of society. I've read reports where people who've done it had said it's had a very real negative impact on their mental health. As I said earlier, fixing problems like this at scale is insanely hard. It's one of those things that might seem easy at a superficial level but it's fraught with errors and you can guarantee that whatever decision the moderator makes (be that human or algorithm) someone will be unhappy and claim it's not fair.
sp332 6y ago
But they're not asking the podcast hosts to remove the content. They're penalizing a podcast player app, which has no ability to remove bad content.
- laumars 6y ago
  Again, I didn’t say I agree with the apps removal, just that Google we’re at least being internally consistent. With regards to the app removal, do we know it is a Google management decision and not the work of an overzealous app reviewer or an algorithm (the latter being the way Google usually operate)? The reason I talk about internal consistency is because it is hard getting the right balance between removing stuff that should be vs stuff that shouldn’t and that problem is only magnified when when doing so at scale. So if this were a management then I totally understand the pitchforks but if it’s a false positive an in algorithm then hopefully Google will rectify and we can all go back to moaning about Electron or whatever the next meme is.
  - sp332 6y ago
    I disagree that they are being consistent. An almost-equivalent move would be suspending the entire YouTube app, and making a new entry in the Play Store after they have removed all offending content. But at least YouTube has some ability to remove content, so that would actually make more sense than suspending Podcast Addict which plays third-party-hosted media.
    - laumars 6y ago
      They’re suspending accounts on YouTube and pulling videos, just like they’re doing with apps on their Play Store. They can’t moderate the podcasts posted but they can moderate the apps and videos posted. So of course it’s internally consistent. The real question is whether it should be consistently upheld without exceptions and the answer to that is obviously “no” because some apps are hubs to user curated content like that podcast app is. As for your comment about them suspending their entire YouTube app, you talk as if this was a management exec decision rather than rouge judgement that will inevitably get overturned. Google isn’t a single entity. It’s a collection of people and algorithms all making their own judgements based on Google’s policies. Sometimes they miss stuff they should moderate and sometimes they get overzealous and remove content they shouldn’t. There is such a large grey area and scope for personal judgement that you have to expect some unpopular verdicts from time to time. It’s shit but no two situations are identical so it’s a problem that’s impossible to avoid. The real tell is whether Google reverse the decision once the complaint gets escalated.

sneak 6y ago

Google's rules only apply to their competitors in the attention economy.

solarkraft 6y ago

> Insane stuff Google is actually applying the same standard in this case (or at least attempting to). They're also fighting conspiracy theories on YouTube.

laumars 6y ago
It's a great pity all the factual comments about YouTube's COVID-19 video removal policy (or "censorship" depending on your viewpoint) are being down voted while all the anti-Google rhetoric is floating above it. I get it's cool to hate Google these days and I'm not saying I agree with the removal of the podcast app, however the removal of that app is consistent with how Google have been maintaining some of their other platforms too. This isn't a theoretical point either, it's been well documented in the news and talked to death on here too. So regardless of my opinion of Google (and to be clear: I'm not fan either) I still can't help feeling that all the "Google are hypocrites" remarks being made are completely ignorant of the fact that Google are actually removing content on YouTube as well. Here's a bunch of citations that proves this and the GP comments are actually correct despite the down votes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23220864 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23220864
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  It's a great pity that you treat legitimate disagreement as mindless anger. "They are removing content on youtube." is a true factual statement. "They are applying the same standard." is not. The motivation may be the same, but the types of removal are very different. As long as their own podcasting app is up in its current form, there is a very good argument that they're not being consistent.
  - laumars 6y ago
    > It's a great pity that you treat legitimate disagreement as mindless anger. I’m not talking about disagreement of these posts (there’s nothing to disagree, the comments were factually accurate), I’m talking about the comments where people say stuff like “Google's rules only apply to their competitors“, which clearly isn’t true (as I’ve proven). I also don’t agree with you exaggerating my comments to claim I was accusing people of being mindless and agree when I said no such thing. > The motivation may be the same, but the types of removal are very different. As long as their own podcasting app is up in its current form, there is a very good argument that they're not being consistent. When splitting hairs there’s a risk you sub-divide the problem so finely that you then can argue nothing is equivalent and I think that’s what’s happening here. There’s a saying that goes something like “don’t attributed malice to acts of incompetence” which applies here. People are quick to jump on the offensive when it’s clearly a policy that Google follow on their other platforms and it might well be a decision that is overturned upon review. I explain this point more eloquently here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23222167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23222167

janova 6y ago

How is it that this live feed is allowed? "Coronavirus Live Map and realtime counter - Latest worldwide COVID-19 stats and figures." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRy5_KpPxyM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRy5_KpPxyM And there're tons more when you search "covid 19 stats" in YT