8 ms·

The rationale they gave is that hate speech appears on these apps, because some of the microblogging sites that can be accessed via Fediverse have this kind of

The rationale they gave is that hate speech appears on these apps, because some of the microblogging sites that can be accessed via Fediverse have this kind of content. Based on this rationale, I look forward to Google Play removing Chrome, Firefox, and all other web browsers from the store as well.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ng12 6y ago
Well, we asked for this. We demanded Twitter and FB censor their content, we applauded Cloudflare* for deplatforming websites. Now those monopolies can use the precedent to control more of the web.
- sp332 6y ago
  *Cloudflare
- Avamander 6y ago
  Well, we didn't. Did we say that apps that give ubiquitous access to generally positive content should be removed? No, not really. Did we say that apps that contain user content should consider a bit what behaviour they enable and promote? Yes, and they have done so for a long while, remember, there's illegal content other than what people would call "hate speech".
- bccdee 6y ago
  Asking a platform to moderate the content on its website isn't the same as asking an app distributor to ban apps which could conceivably be used to communicate objectionable ideas. Those are completely different.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- zucker42 6y ago
  Who is "we"?
caseysoftware 6y ago
The only way they can define and enforce "hate speech" policies is by torturing the language, the definitions, and hoping no one looks closely at the resulting policies. In the US, beyond explicit calls for illegal behavior (usually illegal) and kiddie porn (always illegal), we don't have many restrictions or even a legal definition of "hate speech." But even those laws aren't consistently applied. For the most part, it's up to the judgement of the viewer or based on the "reasonable person" rule and "reasonable people" seem to be getting rarer and rarer.. Ref: https://www.thoughtco.com/hate-speech-cases-721215 https://www.thoughtco.com/hate-speech-cases-721215
- frank2 6y ago
  >>The rationale [Google] gave is that hate speech appears on these apps >The only way they can define and enforce "hate speech" policies is by torturing the language, the definitions, and hoping no one looks closely at the resulting policies The rest of your comment is about the first amendment to the US constitution, which constrains governments (US Federal and state governments), not private parties such as Google. Google would be well within its rights in the US to ban all hate speech from all the platforms it owns.
  - caseysoftware 6y ago
    Cool. And the definition of "hate speech" is..? Or at least the general principles that would make it obvious to a "reasonable person" are..?
fluidcruft 6y ago
Similar things happened to some android reddit clients a few years ago and it was resolved by removing certain subreddits from menu of pre-filled subreddits. So maybe these apps just need to remove any problematic pre-filled servers.
- gargron 6y ago
  Subway Tooter does not come with any pre-filled servers, let alone problematic ones.
  - fluidcruft 6y ago
    Subway Tooter is on the Play Store. Dunno if it was reinstated or what.
baybal2 6y ago
This is not the case. Don't assume goodwill from Google. > The rationale they gave is that hate speech appears on these apps, So does in countless app on the store, and not in the third party content, but app themselves pretty much, and Google don't touch it. A much more rational assumption is that Google sees the Fediverse as something that can come to steal their cattle (eyeballs,) and they have a plan to subplant it. You will very soon see them turning even more picky, and eventually remove even censored fediverse apps. They are repeating the trick they did with uBlock. First, they say do a purge, with an option for the most resistant to "play along," and a few month later, they pull the rug again. This way, they evade an immediate backlash.
ardy42 6y ago
> The rationale they gave is that hate speech appears on these apps, because some of the microblogging sites that can be accessed via Fediverse have this kind of content. Do the apps connect by default to a server that allows hate speech? If that's the case, is this an instance of bad defaults? Maybe the apps could work around this by just connecting to a server that's moderated to be acceptable to Google, but leave it configurable.
- arianvanp 6y ago
  No. You need to explicitly connect in most fediverse apps. They're like browsers
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > No. You need to explicitly connect in most fediverse apps. They're like browsers It's pretty egregious to ban an app like that. Still, I wonder if an innocuous default server (or set of them) might smooth things over with Google. That would increase the friction of accessing the content they don't like. Android's also relatively open, so if they only have issues with specific servers, maybe the app could just drop a text-file blocklist on the filesystem that a user could tecnically edit to change it (but just not via the app).
    - monadic2 6y ago
      Appeasement isn't a good option here either when the ban is irrational at face value to begin with.
      - ardy42 6y ago
        > Appeasement isn't a good option here either when the ban is irrational at face value to begin with. These apps might not have any good options.
        monadic2 6y ago
boring_twenties 6y ago
We can start small and demand removal of the gmail app, first. Baby steps.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ng12 6y ago

Well, we asked for this. We demanded Twitter and FB censor their content, we applauded Cloudflare* for deplatforming websites. Now those monopolies can use the precedent to control more of the web.

sp332 6y ago
*Cloudflare
Avamander 6y ago
Well, we didn't. Did we say that apps that give ubiquitous access to generally positive content should be removed? No, not really. Did we say that apps that contain user content should consider a bit what behaviour they enable and promote? Yes, and they have done so for a long while, remember, there's illegal content other than what people would call "hate speech".
bccdee 6y ago
Asking a platform to moderate the content on its website isn't the same as asking an app distributor to ban apps which could conceivably be used to communicate objectionable ideas. Those are completely different.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
zucker42 6y ago
Who is "we"?

caseysoftware 6y ago

The only way they can define and enforce "hate speech" policies is by torturing the language, the definitions, and hoping no one looks closely at the resulting policies. In the US, beyond explicit calls for illegal behavior (usually illegal) and kiddie porn (always illegal), we don't have many restrictions or even a legal definition of "hate speech." But even those laws aren't consistently applied. For the most part, it's up to the judgement of the viewer or based on the "reasonable person" rule and "reasonable people" seem to be getting rarer and rarer.. Ref: https://www.thoughtco.com/hate-speech-cases-721215 https://www.thoughtco.com/hate-speech-cases-721215

frank2 6y ago
>>The rationale [Google] gave is that hate speech appears on these apps >The only way they can define and enforce "hate speech" policies is by torturing the language, the definitions, and hoping no one looks closely at the resulting policies The rest of your comment is about the first amendment to the US constitution, which constrains governments (US Federal and state governments), not private parties such as Google. Google would be well within its rights in the US to ban all hate speech from all the platforms it owns.
- caseysoftware 6y ago
  Cool. And the definition of "hate speech" is..? Or at least the general principles that would make it obvious to a "reasonable person" are..?

fluidcruft 6y ago

Similar things happened to some android reddit clients a few years ago and it was resolved by removing certain subreddits from menu of pre-filled subreddits. So maybe these apps just need to remove any problematic pre-filled servers.

gargron 6y ago
Subway Tooter does not come with any pre-filled servers, let alone problematic ones.
- fluidcruft 6y ago
  Subway Tooter is on the Play Store. Dunno if it was reinstated or what.

baybal2 6y ago

This is not the case. Don't assume goodwill from Google. > The rationale they gave is that hate speech appears on these apps, So does in countless app on the store, and not in the third party content, but app themselves pretty much, and Google don't touch it. A much more rational assumption is that Google sees the Fediverse as something that can come to steal their cattle (eyeballs,) and they have a plan to subplant it. You will very soon see them turning even more picky, and eventually remove even censored fediverse apps. They are repeating the trick they did with uBlock. First, they say do a purge, with an option for the most resistant to "play along," and a few month later, they pull the rug again. This way, they evade an immediate backlash.

ardy42 6y ago

> The rationale they gave is that hate speech appears on these apps, because some of the microblogging sites that can be accessed via Fediverse have this kind of content. Do the apps connect by default to a server that allows hate speech? If that's the case, is this an instance of bad defaults? Maybe the apps could work around this by just connecting to a server that's moderated to be acceptable to Google, but leave it configurable.

arianvanp 6y ago
No. You need to explicitly connect in most fediverse apps. They're like browsers
- ardy42 6y ago
  > No. You need to explicitly connect in most fediverse apps. They're like browsers It's pretty egregious to ban an app like that. Still, I wonder if an innocuous default server (or set of them) might smooth things over with Google. That would increase the friction of accessing the content they don't like. Android's also relatively open, so if they only have issues with specific servers, maybe the app could just drop a text-file blocklist on the filesystem that a user could tecnically edit to change it (but just not via the app).
  - monadic2 6y ago
    Appeasement isn't a good option here either when the ban is irrational at face value to begin with.
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > Appeasement isn't a good option here either when the ban is irrational at face value to begin with. These apps might not have any good options.
      - monadic2 6y ago

boring_twenties 6y ago

We can start small and demand removal of the gmail app, first. Baby steps.