3 ms·

I believe that removal of Element from Google Play Store is a violation of EU regulation 2019/1150. Element has legal entities in Britain (which is affected by

I believe that removal of Element from Google Play Store is a violation of EU regulation 2019/1150. Element has legal entities in Britain (which is affected by Brexit but has similar law) and France. Google is LEGALLY required to provide a justification for removal 30 days before application removal. Anyway, you may try contacting Google using EU regulation 2019/1150 violation procedure, see https://support.google.com/merchants/answer/9969397 https://support.google.com/merchants/answer/9969397 for more information. This may be more effective than using a regular contact procedure, as it would show Google that you are aware of this regulation and they are unlikely to win. Note that I'm not a lawyer.

yorwba 6y ago
> Google is LEGALLY required to provide a justification for removal 30 days before application removal. You mean this? 2. Where a provider of online intermediation services decides to terminate the provision of the whole of its online intermediation services to a given business user, it shall provide the business user concerned, at least 30 days prior to the termination taking effect, with a statement of reasons for that decision on a durable medium. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32019R1150&from=EN#d1e814-57-1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... Firstly, I'm not sure whether they really terminated "the provision of the whole of its online intermediation services" or just suspended the one app store listing. Secondly, there are exceptions: 4. The notice period in paragraph 2 shall not apply where a provider of online intermediation services: (a) is subject to a legal or regulatory obligation which requires it to terminate the provision of the whole of its online intermediation services to a given business user in a manner which does not allow it to respect that notice period; or (b) exercises a right of termination under an imperative reason pursuant to national law which is in compliance with Union law; (c) can demonstrate that the business user concerned has repeatedly infringed the applicable terms and conditions, resulting in the termination of the provision of the whole of the online intermediation services in question. In cases where the notice period in paragraph 2 does not apply, the provider of online intermediation services shall provide the business user concerned, without undue delay, with a statement of reasons for that decision on a durable medium. So it all comes down to what their reasons for the suspension were. EDIT: Just saw this update: https://mobile.twitter.com/element_hq/status/1355465650114846720 https://mobile.twitter.com/element_hq/status/135546565011484... So they revealed their reasons within 12 hours, which I'm going to file under "without undue delay". (But did they use a "durable medium"?)
- GlitchMr 6y ago
  Hm, yeah, I think you are right here. That said, the reason for removal provided by Google seems to be nonsensical ("abusive content somewhere on Matrix", really?), so mediation should be effective here. This particular reason easily applies to an application like Google Chrome, and EU regulation 2019/1150 requires differential treatment to be documented, which I don't think it is in this case.
  - vbezhenar 6y ago
    Chrome has “malicious website” feature to censor any website they want. Does Element have anything similar?
    - pferde 6y ago
      Yes, any Element user can report abusive or offensive content to admin of the Matrix server they connect to, and admin can remove the content locally and/or block remote Matrix servers from which the content originates. At their discretion.
    - megous 6y ago
      That's optional. User can turn it off.
      - cbarrick 6y ago
        But it's on by default, just like Reddit apps are required to have NSFW filters on by default. I dunno if it's possible to do this kind of filter on Matrix. That said, if they go with this argument, the precedent would have to apply to all other unfiltered, federated messaging clients, including those for IRC and email.

yorwba 6y ago

> Google is LEGALLY required to provide a justification for removal 30 days before application removal. You mean this? 2. Where a provider of online intermediation services decides to terminate the provision of the whole of its online intermediation services to a given business user, it shall provide the business user concerned, at least 30 days prior to the termination taking effect, with a statement of reasons for that decision on a durable medium. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32019R1150&from=EN#d1e814-57-1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... Firstly, I'm not sure whether they really terminated "the provision of the whole of its online intermediation services" or just suspended the one app store listing. Secondly, there are exceptions: 4. The notice period in paragraph 2 shall not apply where a provider of online intermediation services: (a) is subject to a legal or regulatory obligation which requires it to terminate the provision of the whole of its online intermediation services to a given business user in a manner which does not allow it to respect that notice period; or (b) exercises a right of termination under an imperative reason pursuant to national law which is in compliance with Union law; (c) can demonstrate that the business user concerned has repeatedly infringed the applicable terms and conditions, resulting in the termination of the provision of the whole of the online intermediation services in question. In cases where the notice period in paragraph 2 does not apply, the provider of online intermediation services shall provide the business user concerned, without undue delay, with a statement of reasons for that decision on a durable medium. So it all comes down to what their reasons for the suspension were. EDIT: Just saw this update: https://mobile.twitter.com/element_hq/status/1355465650114846720 https://mobile.twitter.com/element_hq/status/135546565011484... So they revealed their reasons within 12 hours, which I'm going to file under "without undue delay". (But did they use a "durable medium"?)

GlitchMr 6y ago
Hm, yeah, I think you are right here. That said, the reason for removal provided by Google seems to be nonsensical ("abusive content somewhere on Matrix", really?), so mediation should be effective here. This particular reason easily applies to an application like Google Chrome, and EU regulation 2019/1150 requires differential treatment to be documented, which I don't think it is in this case.
- vbezhenar 6y ago
  Chrome has “malicious website” feature to censor any website they want. Does Element have anything similar?
  - pferde 6y ago
    Yes, any Element user can report abusive or offensive content to admin of the Matrix server they connect to, and admin can remove the content locally and/or block remote Matrix servers from which the content originates. At their discretion.
  - megous 6y ago
    That's optional. User can turn it off.
    - cbarrick 6y ago
      But it's on by default, just like Reddit apps are required to have NSFW filters on by default. I dunno if it's possible to do this kind of filter on Matrix. That said, if they go with this argument, the precedent would have to apply to all other unfiltered, federated messaging clients, including those for IRC and email.