23 ms·
In most of these stories featuring Google abusing their power to remove apps, it's usually a matter of some automated tool gone wrong and the problem is solved
by lord_erasmus 6y ago
In most of these stories featuring Google abusing their power to remove apps, it's usually a matter of some automated tool gone wrong and the problem is solved a couple of days later. But this time it's different, they are actually asking developers to censor themselves if they are not affiliated with a gov.
- gundmc 6y agoWhat makes you think this is something other than another (awful) high profile case of automation gone wrong?
- fauigerzigerk 6y agoBecause their action seems consistent with their stated intention of banning all non-official speech on Covid-19? It could still be reversed if they feel public opinion swings the other way. That wouldn't mean it's automation gone wrong.
- random32840 6y agoIt may be automated based on frequency of reports, but either way this is unlikely to be company policy. The people who make these decisions are relatively low-level employees following a company guidebook. The guidebook says it has to go? It has to go. The employee doesn't want to get fired. I doubt it'll stick.
- fauigerzigerk 6y ago>...but either way this is unlikely to be company policy Perhaps you haven't seen the article because it's behind an Apple News link. There's a screenshot of a message stating company policy as follows: "Pursuant to Section 8.3 of the Developer Agreement and the Enforcement policy, apps referencing Covid-19, or related terms, in any form will only be approved for distribution on Google Play if they are published, commissioned or authorized by official government entities or public health organizations"
- mc32 6y agoWe’re stuck between a rock and a hard place. With new diseases or any new phenomena knowledge changes frequently. Oftentimes official organs are lagging and independent voices are at the forefront and have the freshest information. Unfortunately both of the above can have counter agenda (could have good intentions such as calming hoarding), even worse is that you can have kooks, active disinformation, lulz, etc. There is no good answer to this.
- fauigerzigerk 6y agoI think our traditional answer was good enough. Trust the people to weigh a wide range of information and opinions. Delegate more detailed analysis and decision making to political representatives and independent institutions. It's not like there wasn't any anti-scientific rubbish, hate speech and manipulation in book shops, newspapers and on TV. Entire countries used to be run by media barons (literally or effectively). Regarding Covid specifically, I find it pretty ironic that free speech should be restricted to government officials by an oligopoly of US corporations while the head of the US government routinely spreads anti-scientific disinformation on that very subject (and on others).
- mc32 6y agoI agree. Not only the US but even the WHO is very susceptible to manipulation (it’s not human transmissible, then yes it is, masks don’t work, then yes they do). We also see politics dictate policy (viz Taiwan). Then Gates alarms almost everyone with his “disease free certificates”.
- random32840 6y agoThat's not what I meant. I mean, it's unlikely that someone high up in the company decided to snipe this app. It's probably a low-level employee following the formal rulebook a little too much to the letter.
- vageli 6y ago> >...but either way this is unlikely to be company policy > Perhaps you haven't seen the article because it's behind an Apple News link. There's a screenshot of a message stating company policy as follows: > "Pursuant to Section 8.3 of the Developer Agreement and the Enforcement policy, apps referencing Covid-19, or related terms, in any form will only be approved for distribution on Google Play if they are published, commissioned or authorized by official government entities or public health organizations" How does their own browser not run afoul of this policy?
- cwhiz 6y agoExcept for the Covid-19 podcast on the Google podcast app.
- thu2111 6y agoThe tool is clearly implementing the policy as described. It's just a policy that's stupid, arrogant and naive.
- gitgud 6y agoSurely Google's automated tools wouldn't automatically suspend an app that has 5 stars and over 500,000 reviews .... surely
- sp332 6y agoThere have been too many cases of a popular app being bought by scammers and repurposed. They can't exempt an app from being suspended just because it's popular.
- Dylan16807 6y agoExempting it from automatic suspension is not exempting it from suspension.
- Technetium 6y agoI would rather apps be automatically suspended and the install marked as potentially dangerous than have my device goatse'd to a malicious developer for any amount of time.
- Dylan16807 6y agoThat can be accommodated. Automatic suspension that lasts 20-30 minutes while someone on the team looks into the case and makes a human judgement. But a full suspension, on a popular app, without rapid human review? That shouldn't happen. Also, this wasn't up to the "install marked as dangerous" level. They just prevented new installs. In a situation like that, there's no need to act instantly.
- Spivak 6y agoThat kind "popularity content" policy will never work because because then scammers will just buy apps with good reputation. This describes the entire browser extension marketplace. Any extension with a good reputation and a broad permission set will sell for a good bit of money.
- imron 6y ago> and the problem is solved a couple of days later. If the developer is lucky enough to hit the front page of HN.
- Spivak 6y agoThis isn't as weird as it seems in this new weird world. The "most official" support channel for Spotify is their Twitter handle while their email form is the secondary option. Letting internet outrage drive the support queue is oddly pragmatic.
- X6S1x6Okd1st 6y agoIt's not pragmatic, its just the bare minimum. It turns out that if you want good support you have to scale your support to the number of users.
- swiley 6y agoMeh. If I left an automation roaming the streets and it ate someone’s kid I would get in trouble. If google’s automations are broken and they harm the world then they need to be responsible and fix them or replace them with people.
- buttersbrian 6y agoBut automating something that might eat a kid, versus inadvertently blocking an app access very very different. This why no one is tackling a nanny bot --- repercussions. Agreed on the last part.
- swiley 6y agoOk maybe an automation that blocked a parking lot is a better analogy.
- carapace 6y agoUber killed Elaine Herzberg and didn't get in trouble.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- specialist 6y agoAutomated jurisprudence and adjudication seems to be suboptimal. Isn't the elimination of human judgement one reason we all hate bureaucracies?