22 ms·

Google Play store bans polyamory dating app

212 points by pcthrowaway 6y ago

LinuxBender 6y ago
Having never owned a smart phone I am curious if you need an app for this, or could you simply have an old school forum and people visit it on their phones browser? Is that even feasible? Too much friction?
- drannex 6y ago
  Ease of use. Just as most people in the dating scene these days use apps ala Tinder, Match, eHarmony, Her, Bumble, &c this was just a service that specifically catered to those looking to be in poly relationships or to be part of a community of like-minded people (they had overall community experiences built in as well). This allowed you to have separate accounts searching as a solo, double, or as a couple as well as built in chat and matching systems, traditional apps and forums are not exactly well poised for searching nor focused enough for these sort of relationships especially as most people are against* polyamory in most cases. Most typical forums on the subject only cater to the sexual aspect, even if not intended, and tend to bring in less than stellar users. This was an attempt to focus more on the relationship aspect (definitely more than the approved Grindr) There certainly needs to be an app in this space.
- ttfxxcc 6y ago
  Boomers prefer apps because they have a hard time using a web browser.
- NullPrefix 6y ago
  >Having never owned a smart phone I am curious if you need an app for this Yes. No smartphone will make people think you're a creep. /somewhat s
  - drannex 6y ago
    HN rule: Don't snark or shallow dismissals - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
  - cheese_van 6y ago
    I did elicit laughter from very young people who saw me single-finger punching into a flip-top. I do recall when "portable" phones were carried in a suitcase. I'm not sure what order of magnitude change we have now with our phones, but certainly more than 10x. And since I also recall, with distaste, updating some dumb Banyan Vines email map on a daily basis, Gmail seems to me rather brilliantly > 10x.
  - Traubenfuchs 6y ago
    It's clearly a sign of a certain, actually quite high, level of refusal to participate in mainstream society.
- jfengel 6y ago
  It's certainly not necessary. A lot of apps are literally just the web site packaged up with a call to the built-in browser. Apps like that are always a little clunky, especially if you want to use native features like the GPS or the camera -- both of which a dating app will want. They are accessible in the browser, but it's not quite seamless. The experience isn't a forum. You want something a bit more tailored to dating. But it's entirely within the realm of a browser. So why package it as an app? More than anything I think it's because people expect it. The experience is tuned towards interactions on a mobile device. That isn't a huge difference, but you're trying to compete in a tough market, and they want to feel perfect. Like the difference between Tinder's "swipe" interaction (left for no, right for yes) versus a couple of buttons. The usability difference is small, but it's iconic. You could mimic it with a browser, but you really want to nail it. Similarly, having the app right on your front screen rather than as just another bookmark... it makes it feel important. Small things that make a big difference when you're trying to sell an experience. Experience is critical for a dating app. It's kind of a winner-take-all (or most) situation: the more users you have, the more likely a user will find somebody they want and who wants them. The better it looks, the more likely you'll be the one people want to spend time on.
- joecot 6y ago
  Most apps could really be Progressive Web Apps, using html css and javascript with local caching and storage. Both angular and react can handle running PWAs as do many other frameworks, and it's not rocket science to make a PWA. Even Parler had a PWA people could use when they got pulled from the store. The problem is that the extra few steps to install a PWA (which is really just a webpage bookmark you put on your home screen plus some local caching) are a lot of friction. The hilarity after Parler got pulled was non techies trying to describe installing a PWA to each other and failing at it. You also lose a lot of "organic" search results with a PWA. You don't get the app marketplace searching/related results like Google Play or the Apple Store has if you aren't in the marketplace. If you do both marketplace apps and encouraging people to install PWAs instead of your app, that's now less downloads in the app store and therefore lower rankings. It's doable to make a PWA instead of or in addition to an app, and that means you're still a usable service if you get pulled from stores, but it's not straight forward or perfect right now. The push to make Google and Apple let apps stay in their stores is the wrong push -- instead the push should be for more straight forward PWA support.
- npteljes 6y ago
  Since a lot of platforms had an app version besides the website, people now expect it. Maybe app stores have a better reputation than the www does, with all the spam and phising that has been going on. So basically having an app is a way to reach people, and a signal that you keep up with the times.
alfalfasprout 6y ago
This is the dangerous flip side to having two players be the gatekeepers as to what can and cannot be an app (yes, I'm aware on android apps can be installed outside google play technically... but the audience is tiny). With Parler, for example, I remember reading tons of posts in support of taking the app down. But that same process can be easily used to silence apps like these.
- jasonvorhe 6y ago
  This has nothing to do with Parler. Google has been auto-banning apps based on stupid blacklists and ML magic for years because they don't have a human review process (or if they do, it doesn't do good work). A couple of weeks ago it hit a Matrix chat app and it's been restored now. The shit storm will now lead to someone at Google escalating this and the app will be back soon. I'm pretty sure that banning Parler was a decision where a lot of people where involved.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  Taking down Parler was certainly not justified, but I agree it was one step down the slippery slope that normalizes this kind of brazen gatekeeping on essential public utilities like app stores. Facebook played a much larger role in the planning of the riot at the capitol riots (https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/02/07/sheryl-sandberg-downplayed-facebooks-role-in-the-capitol-hill-siege-justice-department-files-tell-a-very-different-story/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/02/07/shery...) and they faced no consequences, presumably because they share the same political culture as Google and Apple. It's also a gross overreaction to shut down Parler because the vast majority of people using Parler or supporting Trump did not participate in the riot. Tens of thousands were in DC that day for various rallies and protests, and thousands stayed outside the barricades at the capitol. A few hundred went past them as protesters (rioters?), but committed no additional crimes beyond trespassing, which is the same as past incidents at the capitol like the riots at Brett Kavanaugh hearings (https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/405500-212-protesters-total-arrested-during-kavanaugh-hearings https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/405500-212-protesters-to...). Ultimately only 10 were associated with the Oath Keepers (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/29/us/oath-keepers-capitol-riot.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/29/us/oath-keepe...). And on the balance, Parler had 20 million users (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler) and Trump had north of 70 million supporters. It's not justifiable to stop all those people from having a voice. How was it at all justifiable for AOC to demand Parler be shutdown, for tech companies to immediately fall in line by banning the app, and for other companies to also participate in a seemingly coordinated deplatforming effort? It's also chilling to consider that a sitting legislator can call for the shutdown of the speech of private citizens - that amounts to the government coercing bans of speech from private organizations, and is a first amendment violation. Either way, here we are, in a world where people depend on their mobile phones as utilities, but are serviced by companies that are not regulated as public utilities. They need to either stop being gatekeepers, and act neutrally, or they need to be regulated to enforce that requirement. After all, they are effectively immune to competition.
tempaccount2342 6y ago
Blacklist is an out-of-date divisive term. We've moved on to "banlist" and "allowlist" thx.
- jsilence 6y ago
  No we have not. And we don't want to, so please stop this. You are free to call it anything you want, but don't tell us how to call it.
  - cthalupa 6y ago
    What do you have to lose by switching to a term that is more descriptive and less likely to be offensive to someone? "We've called it that for a long time" isn't really an argument to keep doing it. For non-native speakers, they have to be familiar with the idiom or it is a meaningless statement, and whether or not the original intent was for it to be related at all to skin color, it can feed in to people's unconscious biases and perceptions. There is zero downside in moving to block/denylist and allowlist and plenty of upside.
    - lurquer 6y ago
      I agree. For some time, I’ve been troubled by the name of this site as well, as it brings to mind the notorious insurrectionist, Samuel Hacker, of the Confederate 3rd Tennessee Regiment. I’d like to think naming the site after that racist was accidental. But, adding in “News” after his name — (pronounce similarly to “noose”) — must make many people very uncomfortable.
      - cthalupa 6y ago
        While this is a pithy response, even if Samuel Hacker wasn't fictitious, it would still not be a particularly good one. In the United States alone, there are more than 40 million black people. You do understand the difference between 40+ million English speakers who must hear and see the color of their skin be used in a negative connotation vs. what would be incredibly obscure connotations if it was even true?
fallat 6y ago
Is there not an open APK repository anyone can submit to? It could be a community run endeavor and research project even. We could develop software to detect APKs which exhibit possible malicious behavior and give them scores.
- bobsmooth 6y ago
  Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but isn't that F-Droid? But that's only for open-source apps.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
    Worth noting that fdroid is an app and a couple of (default) repos, but you can add additional repos to the same app (like Debian; it ships with all-FOSS repos, but you can add more and apt will happily pull nonfree software from them).
    - yosito 6y ago
      Do you know any non-FOSS repos that can be added to FDroid? On my devices that don't have Google Play Services, I end up going to the APK Pure and APK Mirror websites which are super sketchy and loaded with tracking and ads.
      - berkes 6y ago
        I'm using Aurora store for this. To me, finding and installing apps is one piece. The most important piece, however, is updating the apps. For me, at least. Aurora handles this, and uses the play store as source. It's reasonably userfriendly and out of the way.
- npteljes 6y ago
  There is such a heuristics site, but for trackers specifically: https://reports.exodus-privacy.eu.org/en/ https://reports.exodus-privacy.eu.org/en/
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
8bitsrule 6y ago
>Google's developer guidelines prohibit apps "that contain or promote ... any content or services intended to be sexually gratifying." Very reminiscent of the language of the US Comstock Laws which started 148 years ago. One hundred and two years ago, a judge called those laws "haphazard and capricious". Those words seem to fit in this case. And this is not the Victorian Era. I imagine Google would rather not be called to D.C. again to explain its behavior to a Congress that is unwilling to explicitly define it's expectations.
- filleduchaos 6y ago
  Why would they be called by Congress when their guidelines are largely because of Congress?
- lupire 6y ago
  Is an ovulation tracker "sexually gratifying"? What is more gratifying than procreation?
sprite 6y ago
Just a quick search in Google Play Store shows several apps that are similarly named including "Threesome Dating App for Couples & Swingers: 3rder". While I don't agree that they should be policing this content at all I think the inconsistency at which they do it is even worse. They won't hesitate to remove an app or your entire account and once they do it's impossible to talk to anyone. Meanwhile other similar apps or developers of similar apps that got you banned remain in the store. I've been banned from Google Play Developer portal since 2015 because I had an app that accessed an undocumented API of a 3rd party service: "we have determined that your app interferes with or accesses another service or product in an unauthorized manner." I had two different apps using the same API so I got 2 strikes at once and was immediately banned. I've tried multiple times to contact Google to get my account restored, several times in the past few years since it's been so long, but they don't even respond and it's impossible to get a hold of a human.
- woah 6y ago
  You had multiple apps accessing the same unauthorized API? What were you doing?
- harry8 6y ago
  Monopoly power right there (yes I'm assuming someone I don't know on the internet is speaking the truth - the assumption may be wrong). What percentage of the mobile phone market is now closed to you? If you've got the supporting docs to that story it's a good one for any journalist who has an interest in silicon valley market power. Silicon valley monopoly power into a search engine will link up a bunch of newspaper stories about it. Start with the author of the one you think is the best and send them the docs and it may well be there as supporting evidence the next time they write about the abuse of monopolistic power. In general it's a bad idea to "trust" journalists so exercise usual amounts of caution.
  - sprite 6y ago
    I haven’t looked at the exact percentage but I know it’s huge, especially outside the US. I really think they should have a cap on how long you can be banned for. This was also way before Google reviewed apps so if you missed or interpreted something in their developer terms differently from them you risked this happening. I’m assuming that now that they review a reviewer would notify you and decline the app if it was in violation of any terms and you could make the necessary changes first. I feel pretty helpless as ultimately Google has the power to decide who gets to play in their sandbox.
yew 6y ago
The polyamory "community" is generally a hotbed of misogyny and transphobia. Of course it's perfectly possible that this particular app has nothing to do with that. But always do your own research before you choose to amplify a message - you never know who else might be working alongside you.
- harry8 6y ago
  See now here's the thing. I don't care who is "along side". No really. I don't. It's not that interesting. There will always be a total bastard who agrees with you. So what? I don't like prejudice. I don't like hatred of people and all the names it goes by but this makes zero difference to me. I recommend acting on principle and then not caring at all about who agrees. I really admire and respect the mostly Jewish ACLU lawyers who defended American Nazis' rights. Actual swastika wearing Nazis! Defended by Jewish lawyers. Because Nazis rights are your rights and my rights. I know nowadays the catch cry would most likely be "You're literally sticking up for nazis!" No. No! They stuck up for /your/ rights to criticize nazis and march about it. A bunch of Jewish lawyers with close family ties to the holocaust trauma in a very personal way /still/ did that on principle. I find it inspiring courage and unwavering commitment to doing the right thing. That kind of heroism is worth considering every now and then. And for the record, no, I do not like nazis at all, in any way, either. Various other hideous groups take the place of the Nazis at times. Westboro Baptist Church, "terrorists", drug-pushers, serial-killers etc etc. You should still have your principles and see their rights as yours when your rights are weakened because "they" are completely unlovable.
  - yew 6y ago
    The ACLU learned a thing or two from Charlottesville, even if you didn't. I doubt they'd make the mistake of putting "principles" before human lives today. But thank you for being so eager to say that you "don't care who" when "who" are literal Nazis. That is very interesting.
    - harry8 6y ago
      There are literal nazis who use the internet. And yet you still want to be able to log on. That is interesting. But a lot less interesting than you seem to think. I'm sure even you agree with me about something and that fact alone is unlikely to change my mind about whatever-it-is either. And I'm sure literal nazis agree with you about something and probably more than one thing. I counsel you not to care, while noting that doesn't make nazis any better as human beings. See how it works? Principles. They're just great! Sugar free, non-fattening goodness. Try some today!
stevenicr 6y ago
I sometimes ponder... they won't allow my sex chat app in the store - yet I find many apps are rated mature over 17 or something.. and a few of the top 20 search results for 'sex chat' I believe have an app in the store.. then you see this poly site kicked.. and I wonder if tinder and grindr are handing over a large enough chunk of change where the sex rules do not apply. I mean a sex chat app is mostly about chatting when little chance of a real world meet up. However tinder and grinder are basically 'let's have real world sex tonight' apps right? Someone from big G please tell me how to get an app in the store where people can talk about sex. Need a funny name? Need to be able to hand over a ton of money and location data? I sometimes jest that it's a kind of conspiracy. Especially if being in the store is a ranking signal for any search results. Of course I don't know, I just ponder these things. I've made a few bookmarks and screenshots with some research a while back, but no time to share today. Tried to see if it's back in - but from their site that is linked from vice, the link to the play store shows: The site at https://twitter.com/hashtagopen/status/1369022572671733769?s=20 https://twitter.com/hashtagopen/status/1369022572671733769?s... has experienced a network protocol violation that cannot be repaired. Is twitter going further down the block / ban route now? I also ponder if twitter really does ban everyone that has ever talked about violence how many others will be booted in the weeks ahead. Then where will people go to vote up their favorite songs. Just some occasional pondering. edited to add some ' ' - and fix a mispelled word.
- willio58 6y ago
  As someone who has used tinder in the past, no it’s not exactly what you describe it as. Sure, you might be able to find immediate sex if you are lucky and attractive, but it’s not so easy. Grindr, from what I’ve heard from my gay friends who use it, is a lot more casual. Most profiles I came across on tinder specifically mentioned that they were not on it for a short term thing.
  - stevenicr 6y ago
    Thanks for the viewpoint on this. My understanding of the app comes from several guy friends and many girl-friends that seem to use the app for finding sex tonight. Also running around as a part time lyft driver for a year or more, in a city that has rampant tourism, I have been quite amazed at how many people were meeting up with or leaving hotels/airbnbs with stories of just got in town and got on tinder and ... with some person from some other random state with same kind of story. Even though we are bachelorette capital (unofficial) of the country, I have yet to hear about an upcoming wedding that started with a meetup via tinder. I understand I am a small data point in millions, so this proves nothing - but my limited understanding. Maybe my add in point would be that it very much depends on where you are as to the expectations of said app usage. And now that I think about this along with your statement and some of the other dating info I have learned from reading HN over the years.. perhaps time of day and location are very important factors. Certainly tinder usage in a town of 500 is different that the options in a city 3 million. I am now considering that tinder usage at 1am leads to a different type of meetup than say the desires of someone getting on there at 6pm as well. I'd love to see some stats from them like okcupid use to share. What ever the percentage, I think we can assume that most people who meet up via tinder probably have sex before wasting too much - as say compared to a dating app like Devout-Christian-Family-Singles or such.. It's been a fairly shared knowledge I think in these parts anyhow, that if you want a relationship go for something like match dot com.. if you are in anything alternative dating wise okcupid, willing accept a percentage of dates will be with seriously crazy people; plentyoffish, really want to meet up tonight and see what happens, Tinder / grindr.. So I think my questioning of these policies is still fair, we don't have a list of explicit lines that google gives app/site makers. We know these things are being used for 'immoral' things - fornication, frequently, likely by the millions.. and it would be easy for google and match group to know when they are illegal as well (adultery) - so it's not a legal or moral thing they are drawing lines with. It's got to be the money (?) or a small group of googlers that are choosing to be a level or prude in some places and level of give the finger to the church and the gov in others or something. I remember some years ago when cell phone companies had actual lines drawn on a woman's butt showing how small a bikini could be for premium sms messages - when a tiny bikini was too small or not to not violate - at least those lines were drawn and shared with other for a level playing field. These days it feels like the big money incumbents have little to fear from google and it's easy for smaller niche apps / groups of people to be shunned and told to open a browser instead. Which is fine, just some things I think about once in a while.
villgax 6y ago
How much to bet if this was manually done by a conservative reviewer?
- gfxgirl 6y ago
  Honestly, if we could get a group of people, 4chan?, to try to complain about apps and get lots of them banned maybe there'd be more legal pressure to stop Google and Apple being the arbiters of what's allowed on your phone.
  - asmr 6y ago
    this isn't a bad idea. i'm just afraid 4chan doesn't really have that kind of strength anymore.
gizmo686 6y ago
Seems to be back: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.hashtagopen&hl=en_US&gl=US https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.hashtagope...
sedachv 6y ago
I guess this is what happens when Eric Schmidt is no longer around to set company culture: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2371719/Googles-Eric-Schmidts-open-marriage-string-exotic-lovers.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2371719/Googles-Eri...
- onetimemanytime 6y ago
  Or Andy Rubin to reinforce it... :)
  - nindalf 6y ago
    Or that guy Drummond. Seems like polyamory was pretty mainstream among Googles leadership.
    - daniellarusso 6y ago
      There was also Forrest Timothy Hayes that was murdered on his yacht by a prostitute, and she only served 5 years.
      - sedachv 6y ago
        Forrest Hayes was a junkie and a "john" who died from a heroin overdose: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whos-to-blame-in-google-execs-od-death-2/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whos-to-blame-in-google-execs-o... I don't think it was right for Alix Tichelman to leave without calling 911, but there is also no way you can call her actions murder.
  - dfgdghdf 6y ago
    Andy Rubin sexually harassed people. That's not the same thing.
    - onetimemanytime 6y ago
      Definitely not traditional though, to say the least: https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/2/20680145/android-andy-rubin-accused-cheating-fortune-sex-ring https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/2/20680145/android-andy-rubi... "...allegation that Andy supported a string of mistresses, who would often be loaned to other men in what he described as “an ownership relationship.” The complaint alleges Andy had at least five such mistresses, including one (dubbed “M”) who was “complicit with Rubin in running what appeared to be a sex ring.”
linspace 6y ago
Telcos must for example provide net neutrality and are usually not duopolies even on the same country, not to mention world wide. Are there any significant difference between them and app stores? Companies are not people, they don't have "rights". My car or my computer don't have rights. Call me humanist.
fareesh 6y ago
The "private company can do whatever it wants" crowd will not show up for this one because it doesn't suit their politics
- bmarquez 6y ago
  What sort of political crowd is happy with "private company can do whatever it wants"? Both the right and left get targeted by abuse of corporate/monopoly power. Both Democrat and Republican state Attorney Generals have filed antitrust lawsuits against Google.
  - tomp 6y ago
    When Twitter bans Trump and Amazon bans Parler.
- echelon 6y ago
  This is why politics and policy shouldn't mix. Platforms can't deny service. Freedom depends on individual choice. The ACLU defended Parler. Most of the Capitol Hill planning happened on Facebook, anyway. I'm a Democrat and voted for Biden/Ossoff/Warnock, but we can't censor Republican and conservative websites. That's letting power get to our heads, and baking in this sort of status quo will bite us down the road when other entities want to censor us. Speak ill of foreign governments? I could see a world where that's prohibited. Let's not let it happen. Freedom of speech, freedom to run your software on your own device, and rules for the platforms that enhance both of these liberties.
- nobodyknowsyoda 6y ago
  > The "private company can do whatever it wants" crowd will not show up for this one because it doesn't suit their politics The wedding cake crowd or the violent threats one?
- Griffinsauce 6y ago
  Hi, they are well within their rights (as usual) but we can still say it's bs and makes no sense. The difference with the things you're likely defending is that this app does no harm and is only being blocked for puritanical reasons. Ethically they are similar but not the same.
perryizgr8 6y ago
It's ok, google has the last word on what apps they allow on their platform. If this app wants, they can build their own mobile operating system, sell billions of phones all over the world, then sell their app on their os. Or they could also try what Epic games tried (and failed). They can build their own alternate play store and host their app on it. Google is not obligated to provide a platform to everyone and anyone.
- kavalg 6y ago
  In legal terms yes, but monopolies should be regulated for a good reason. How about your water supply company cutting you off, because they don't like that poster on your house?
  - perryizgr8 6y ago
    Google is hardly a monopoly in the mobile OS market. They have around 50% market in the US. How would you say that it is a monopoly?
    - modo_mario 6y ago
      The mobile OS market is a duopoly and only because it's the closes thing to a monopoly they can have without being broken up. Hence Google and Apple can have such high fees which sucks for consumers and app developers, etc. Within their own platform (the android app market) they are a monopoly.
bambax 6y ago
There are no solutions for suspensions from app stores. The solution is to not use app stores -- build better webapps, use the open web. We could be living in a world where no open web ever existed, where everything would be filtered through app stores and closed environments like Facebook (AOL). We need to preserve the open web, it is our most precious ressource.
- lionkor 6y ago
  I dont agree, personally. I believe that putting everything online is not sustainable. It might be very difficult to believe for people who earn so much that they can afford 24/7 stable and fast internet anywhere they go, but there are places where even good old broadband dsl is unstable, in the west. The reasoning of "appstore bad -> lets not use any appstores" is flawed. There are "appstores" like the ones on FOSS systems like linux (discover on Arch/Manjaro comes to mind), which show that you can make an appstore yourself. All we need is to build a cross platform, community managed app store, which allows foss and non-foss apps, with a payment system. Thats the solution, not "make it a webapp".
  - jeegsy 6y ago
    As far as I can tell, a native dating app or a webapp for that matter require an active web connection for full functionality.
    - jackric 6y ago
      Should be possible to queue up profiles when online, review them offline, and sync back responses to the service when online again.
  - mcv 6y ago
    It's app stores as the single gatekeeper to a platform that's bad. I think it's actually fine if there's an app store where you can get vetted apps that have some official stamp of approval from the store owner, but it's also important that that store doesn't have the monopoly to that platform. It should be possible for users to choose a different app store.
baybal2 6y ago
Should Mr. Brin, and Mr. Schmidt ban themselves then?
londons_explore 6y ago
If they removed the word "threesomes" and "kinky" it would pass review first time. Threesomes especially have become too linked to pornography.
- getlawgdon 6y ago
  Kink shaming at its most procedural.
dartharva 6y ago
Having the centralized app store as the only way to install apps by default was always a mistake, a blot on the elegant "hackability" of Android as a platform. I wish Google's hegemony wasn't so prevalent and common people were at least aware that they can sideload apps on their Android phones.
- varispeed 6y ago
  It is probably possible to sideload only because it's not popular. If people were abandoning the Play Store en masse, I think Google would remove that in no time.
euph0ria 6y ago
The company I work for has forbidden the use of Google and their services such as GCP etc. due to how they treat their Play Store developers and other customer, in particular that there never seems to be any human being that you can talk to and find out what you need to do to fix the situation. We do not want the same to occur to our servers or if there is an overflow from Play Store ban to GCP etc. The business risk is too high when you rely on Google's services. Some examples: Ban app even when competitors are similar - https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3vdpj/google-play-store-bans-polyamory-dating-app https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3vdpj/google-play-store-ban... Ban due to wrong wording - https://twitter.com/hermaritz/status/1371383715381805061 https://twitter.com/hermaritz/status/1371383715381805061 Terraria banned - https://twitter.com/Demilogic/status/1358661840402845696 https://twitter.com/Demilogic/status/1358661840402845696 New project banned - https://medium.com/@amton15127/why-you-should-not-use-fireba https://medium.com/@amton15127/why-you-should-not-use-fireba... Google bans company - https://www.reddit.com/r/tifu/comments/8kvias/tifu_by_gettin https://www.reddit.com/r/tifu/comments/8kvias/tifu_by_gettin... Google bans mail - https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-serf-on-googles-farm https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-serf-on-googles-farm Ban app for communicating changes during covid - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23221447 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23221447 Adwords ban - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23224791 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23224791 Serverpunch bad support - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17431609 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17431609 Delete app - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20826618 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20826618 Google bans game with pandemic - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23229073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23229073 Google bans dev with no recourse - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15197357 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15197357
eric4smith 6y ago
On a side note... (side note!! sheesh!) "Polyamory ...is the practice of, or desire for, intimate relationships with more than one partner, with the informed consent of all partners involved" Sounds good, and has been the case for thousands of years. But modern dating apps and social media are pushing us back to this practice in quite a big (and informal) way. Its innate female nature for women to choose the best men (height, fitness, wealth, status, strength), and that's a good thing for the species! But before the advent of social media and dating apps, they would settle for just average guys too. Dating apps and social media has made it so that all women can now access that top 20% of men quite easily and completely ignore the bottom 80%. This has lead to the counterculture rise of red pill, incel, mg-tow, etc. I'm not on this one side or the other. I'm just noticing there are more Polyamory type apps and behavior out there now, driven by technology. Do you notice it too?
- hasmolo 6y ago
  i don’t think that increased access to “top tier” men is the root cause of this feeling. it seems to me like choices for women around partners were largely made for them for most of history. this led to men from wealth and power to define the “good” traits. the traits we defined were largely based on status. now that access to people with these traits is no longer based on who a woman’s guardian knows, but what’s available in the market a lot of dudes feel left out. i really think this is an issue men caused, entrenched into our society, and then shot themselves in the foot when they lost control of the market supply. if you don’t want the 80/20 thing to exist, stop furthering the narrative and push for non-physical traits to have the greatest value. i think an emotionally available, driven and focused, and caring person is way better for a partner than a hot rich one. as long as most people don’t feel that way we are stuck in the system we built ourselves
  - DC1350 6y ago
    You're kind of right. A lot of marriages were historically done for reasons other than love. Most women aren't sexually attracted to their husbands but they still needed a provider. Now that women are economic equals to men they have no reason to ever settle for guys they don't like, which is most guys. If you've ever seen a woman use a dating app you know that they're all flooded with dozens of messages from hot guys who would love to have sex with them but would never considering marrying them. So women who don't need to marry average guys are happy to wait their turn for a sexual encounter with a top guy instead of giving a regular guy a chance. The idea that we have the ability to "push" for what's desirable makes no sense at all and it's not possible.
williesleg 6y ago
I only love google, not apple.
dqpb 6y ago
Why is there a ban on sexual content? Why is there not a ban on violent content?
DC1350 6y ago
This is pointless. The insecure nerds at Google need to get with the times instead of abusing their power like this to maintain their status. If you work at Google your wife will eventually have a boyfriend. Unless you want to be treated like a barbarian it's something you need to accept. Her body, her choice. Stop trying to control who your partner can have sex with.
ElectricMind 6y ago
It is simple. I know it is unfair and we all can cry. But they own android > they own app store > You can cry 24x7 > Nothing will happen.
nelsonmandela 6y ago
>Co-founders Amanda Wilson and David Epstein >David Epstein Why am I not surprised

212 points by pcthrowaway 6y ago

Having never owned a smart phone I am curious if you need an app for this, or could you simply have an old school forum and people visit it on their phones browser? Is that even feasible? Too much friction?

drannex 6y ago
Ease of use. Just as most people in the dating scene these days use apps ala Tinder, Match, eHarmony, Her, Bumble, &c this was just a service that specifically catered to those looking to be in poly relationships or to be part of a community of like-minded people (they had overall community experiences built in as well). This allowed you to have separate accounts searching as a solo, double, or as a couple as well as built in chat and matching systems, traditional apps and forums are not exactly well poised for searching nor focused enough for these sort of relationships especially as most people are against* polyamory in most cases. Most typical forums on the subject only cater to the sexual aspect, even if not intended, and tend to bring in less than stellar users. This was an attempt to focus more on the relationship aspect (definitely more than the approved Grindr) There certainly needs to be an app in this space.
ttfxxcc 6y ago
Boomers prefer apps because they have a hard time using a web browser.
NullPrefix 6y ago
>Having never owned a smart phone I am curious if you need an app for this Yes. No smartphone will make people think you're a creep. /somewhat s
- drannex 6y ago
  HN rule: Don't snark or shallow dismissals - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
- cheese_van 6y ago
  I did elicit laughter from very young people who saw me single-finger punching into a flip-top. I do recall when "portable" phones were carried in a suitcase. I'm not sure what order of magnitude change we have now with our phones, but certainly more than 10x. And since I also recall, with distaste, updating some dumb Banyan Vines email map on a daily basis, Gmail seems to me rather brilliantly > 10x.
- Traubenfuchs 6y ago
  It's clearly a sign of a certain, actually quite high, level of refusal to participate in mainstream society.
jfengel 6y ago
It's certainly not necessary. A lot of apps are literally just the web site packaged up with a call to the built-in browser. Apps like that are always a little clunky, especially if you want to use native features like the GPS or the camera -- both of which a dating app will want. They are accessible in the browser, but it's not quite seamless. The experience isn't a forum. You want something a bit more tailored to dating. But it's entirely within the realm of a browser. So why package it as an app? More than anything I think it's because people expect it. The experience is tuned towards interactions on a mobile device. That isn't a huge difference, but you're trying to compete in a tough market, and they want to feel perfect. Like the difference between Tinder's "swipe" interaction (left for no, right for yes) versus a couple of buttons. The usability difference is small, but it's iconic. You could mimic it with a browser, but you really want to nail it. Similarly, having the app right on your front screen rather than as just another bookmark... it makes it feel important. Small things that make a big difference when you're trying to sell an experience. Experience is critical for a dating app. It's kind of a winner-take-all (or most) situation: the more users you have, the more likely a user will find somebody they want and who wants them. The better it looks, the more likely you'll be the one people want to spend time on.
joecot 6y ago
Most apps could really be Progressive Web Apps, using html css and javascript with local caching and storage. Both angular and react can handle running PWAs as do many other frameworks, and it's not rocket science to make a PWA. Even Parler had a PWA people could use when they got pulled from the store. The problem is that the extra few steps to install a PWA (which is really just a webpage bookmark you put on your home screen plus some local caching) are a lot of friction. The hilarity after Parler got pulled was non techies trying to describe installing a PWA to each other and failing at it. You also lose a lot of "organic" search results with a PWA. You don't get the app marketplace searching/related results like Google Play or the Apple Store has if you aren't in the marketplace. If you do both marketplace apps and encouraging people to install PWAs instead of your app, that's now less downloads in the app store and therefore lower rankings. It's doable to make a PWA instead of or in addition to an app, and that means you're still a usable service if you get pulled from stores, but it's not straight forward or perfect right now. The push to make Google and Apple let apps stay in their stores is the wrong push -- instead the push should be for more straight forward PWA support.
npteljes 6y ago
Since a lot of platforms had an app version besides the website, people now expect it. Maybe app stores have a better reputation than the www does, with all the spam and phising that has been going on. So basically having an app is a way to reach people, and a signal that you keep up with the times.

alfalfasprout 6y ago

This is the dangerous flip side to having two players be the gatekeepers as to what can and cannot be an app (yes, I'm aware on android apps can be installed outside google play technically... but the audience is tiny). With Parler, for example, I remember reading tons of posts in support of taking the app down. But that same process can be easily used to silence apps like these.

jasonvorhe 6y ago
This has nothing to do with Parler. Google has been auto-banning apps based on stupid blacklists and ML magic for years because they don't have a human review process (or if they do, it doesn't do good work). A couple of weeks ago it hit a Matrix chat app and it's been restored now. The shit storm will now lead to someone at Google escalating this and the app will be back soon. I'm pretty sure that banning Parler was a decision where a lot of people where involved.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
throwawaysea 6y ago
Taking down Parler was certainly not justified, but I agree it was one step down the slippery slope that normalizes this kind of brazen gatekeeping on essential public utilities like app stores. Facebook played a much larger role in the planning of the riot at the capitol riots (https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/02/07/sheryl-sandberg-downplayed-facebooks-role-in-the-capitol-hill-siege-justice-department-files-tell-a-very-different-story/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/02/07/shery...) and they faced no consequences, presumably because they share the same political culture as Google and Apple. It's also a gross overreaction to shut down Parler because the vast majority of people using Parler or supporting Trump did not participate in the riot. Tens of thousands were in DC that day for various rallies and protests, and thousands stayed outside the barricades at the capitol. A few hundred went past them as protesters (rioters?), but committed no additional crimes beyond trespassing, which is the same as past incidents at the capitol like the riots at Brett Kavanaugh hearings (https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/405500-212-protesters-total-arrested-during-kavanaugh-hearings https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/405500-212-protesters-to...). Ultimately only 10 were associated with the Oath Keepers (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/29/us/oath-keepers-capitol-riot.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/29/us/oath-keepe...). And on the balance, Parler had 20 million users (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler) and Trump had north of 70 million supporters. It's not justifiable to stop all those people from having a voice. How was it at all justifiable for AOC to demand Parler be shutdown, for tech companies to immediately fall in line by banning the app, and for other companies to also participate in a seemingly coordinated deplatforming effort? It's also chilling to consider that a sitting legislator can call for the shutdown of the speech of private citizens - that amounts to the government coercing bans of speech from private organizations, and is a first amendment violation. Either way, here we are, in a world where people depend on their mobile phones as utilities, but are serviced by companies that are not regulated as public utilities. They need to either stop being gatekeepers, and act neutrally, or they need to be regulated to enforce that requirement. After all, they are effectively immune to competition.

tempaccount2342 6y ago

Blacklist is an out-of-date divisive term. We've moved on to "banlist" and "allowlist" thx.

jsilence 6y ago
No we have not. And we don't want to, so please stop this. You are free to call it anything you want, but don't tell us how to call it.
- cthalupa 6y ago
  What do you have to lose by switching to a term that is more descriptive and less likely to be offensive to someone? "We've called it that for a long time" isn't really an argument to keep doing it. For non-native speakers, they have to be familiar with the idiom or it is a meaningless statement, and whether or not the original intent was for it to be related at all to skin color, it can feed in to people's unconscious biases and perceptions. There is zero downside in moving to block/denylist and allowlist and plenty of upside.
  - lurquer 6y ago
    I agree. For some time, I’ve been troubled by the name of this site as well, as it brings to mind the notorious insurrectionist, Samuel Hacker, of the Confederate 3rd Tennessee Regiment. I’d like to think naming the site after that racist was accidental. But, adding in “News” after his name — (pronounce similarly to “noose”) — must make many people very uncomfortable.
    - cthalupa 6y ago
      While this is a pithy response, even if Samuel Hacker wasn't fictitious, it would still not be a particularly good one. In the United States alone, there are more than 40 million black people. You do understand the difference between 40+ million English speakers who must hear and see the color of their skin be used in a negative connotation vs. what would be incredibly obscure connotations if it was even true?

fallat 6y ago

Is there not an open APK repository anyone can submit to? It could be a community run endeavor and research project even. We could develop software to detect APKs which exhibit possible malicious behavior and give them scores.

bobsmooth 6y ago
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but isn't that F-Droid? But that's only for open-source apps.
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
  Worth noting that fdroid is an app and a couple of (default) repos, but you can add additional repos to the same app (like Debian; it ships with all-FOSS repos, but you can add more and apt will happily pull nonfree software from them).
  - yosito 6y ago
    Do you know any non-FOSS repos that can be added to FDroid? On my devices that don't have Google Play Services, I end up going to the APK Pure and APK Mirror websites which are super sketchy and loaded with tracking and ads.
    - berkes 6y ago
      I'm using Aurora store for this. To me, finding and installing apps is one piece. The most important piece, however, is updating the apps. For me, at least. Aurora handles this, and uses the play store as source. It's reasonably userfriendly and out of the way.
npteljes 6y ago
There is such a heuristics site, but for trackers specifically: https://reports.exodus-privacy.eu.org/en/ https://reports.exodus-privacy.eu.org/en/

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

8bitsrule 6y ago

>Google's developer guidelines prohibit apps "that contain or promote ... any content or services intended to be sexually gratifying." Very reminiscent of the language of the US Comstock Laws which started 148 years ago. One hundred and two years ago, a judge called those laws "haphazard and capricious". Those words seem to fit in this case. And this is not the Victorian Era. I imagine Google would rather not be called to D.C. again to explain its behavior to a Congress that is unwilling to explicitly define it's expectations.

filleduchaos 6y ago
Why would they be called by Congress when their guidelines are largely because of Congress?
lupire 6y ago
Is an ovulation tracker "sexually gratifying"? What is more gratifying than procreation?

sprite 6y ago

Just a quick search in Google Play Store shows several apps that are similarly named including "Threesome Dating App for Couples & Swingers: 3rder". While I don't agree that they should be policing this content at all I think the inconsistency at which they do it is even worse. They won't hesitate to remove an app or your entire account and once they do it's impossible to talk to anyone. Meanwhile other similar apps or developers of similar apps that got you banned remain in the store. I've been banned from Google Play Developer portal since 2015 because I had an app that accessed an undocumented API of a 3rd party service: "we have determined that your app interferes with or accesses another service or product in an unauthorized manner." I had two different apps using the same API so I got 2 strikes at once and was immediately banned. I've tried multiple times to contact Google to get my account restored, several times in the past few years since it's been so long, but they don't even respond and it's impossible to get a hold of a human.

woah 6y ago
You had multiple apps accessing the same unauthorized API? What were you doing?
harry8 6y ago
Monopoly power right there (yes I'm assuming someone I don't know on the internet is speaking the truth - the assumption may be wrong). What percentage of the mobile phone market is now closed to you? If you've got the supporting docs to that story it's a good one for any journalist who has an interest in silicon valley market power. Silicon valley monopoly power into a search engine will link up a bunch of newspaper stories about it. Start with the author of the one you think is the best and send them the docs and it may well be there as supporting evidence the next time they write about the abuse of monopolistic power. In general it's a bad idea to "trust" journalists so exercise usual amounts of caution.
- sprite 6y ago
  I haven’t looked at the exact percentage but I know it’s huge, especially outside the US. I really think they should have a cap on how long you can be banned for. This was also way before Google reviewed apps so if you missed or interpreted something in their developer terms differently from them you risked this happening. I’m assuming that now that they review a reviewer would notify you and decline the app if it was in violation of any terms and you could make the necessary changes first. I feel pretty helpless as ultimately Google has the power to decide who gets to play in their sandbox.

yew 6y ago

The polyamory "community" is generally a hotbed of misogyny and transphobia. Of course it's perfectly possible that this particular app has nothing to do with that. But always do your own research before you choose to amplify a message - you never know who else might be working alongside you.

harry8 6y ago
See now here's the thing. I don't care who is "along side". No really. I don't. It's not that interesting. There will always be a total bastard who agrees with you. So what? I don't like prejudice. I don't like hatred of people and all the names it goes by but this makes zero difference to me. I recommend acting on principle and then not caring at all about who agrees. I really admire and respect the mostly Jewish ACLU lawyers who defended American Nazis' rights. Actual swastika wearing Nazis! Defended by Jewish lawyers. Because Nazis rights are your rights and my rights. I know nowadays the catch cry would most likely be "You're literally sticking up for nazis!" No. No! They stuck up for /your/ rights to criticize nazis and march about it. A bunch of Jewish lawyers with close family ties to the holocaust trauma in a very personal way /still/ did that on principle. I find it inspiring courage and unwavering commitment to doing the right thing. That kind of heroism is worth considering every now and then. And for the record, no, I do not like nazis at all, in any way, either. Various other hideous groups take the place of the Nazis at times. Westboro Baptist Church, "terrorists", drug-pushers, serial-killers etc etc. You should still have your principles and see their rights as yours when your rights are weakened because "they" are completely unlovable.
- yew 6y ago
  The ACLU learned a thing or two from Charlottesville, even if you didn't. I doubt they'd make the mistake of putting "principles" before human lives today. But thank you for being so eager to say that you "don't care who" when "who" are literal Nazis. That is very interesting.
  - harry8 6y ago
    There are literal nazis who use the internet. And yet you still want to be able to log on. That is interesting. But a lot less interesting than you seem to think. I'm sure even you agree with me about something and that fact alone is unlikely to change my mind about whatever-it-is either. And I'm sure literal nazis agree with you about something and probably more than one thing. I counsel you not to care, while noting that doesn't make nazis any better as human beings. See how it works? Principles. They're just great! Sugar free, non-fattening goodness. Try some today!

stevenicr 6y ago

I sometimes ponder... they won't allow my sex chat app in the store - yet I find many apps are rated mature over 17 or something.. and a few of the top 20 search results for 'sex chat' I believe have an app in the store.. then you see this poly site kicked.. and I wonder if tinder and grindr are handing over a large enough chunk of change where the sex rules do not apply. I mean a sex chat app is mostly about chatting when little chance of a real world meet up. However tinder and grinder are basically 'let's have real world sex tonight' apps right? Someone from big G please tell me how to get an app in the store where people can talk about sex. Need a funny name? Need to be able to hand over a ton of money and location data? I sometimes jest that it's a kind of conspiracy. Especially if being in the store is a ranking signal for any search results. Of course I don't know, I just ponder these things. I've made a few bookmarks and screenshots with some research a while back, but no time to share today. Tried to see if it's back in - but from their site that is linked from vice, the link to the play store shows: The site at https://twitter.com/hashtagopen/status/1369022572671733769?s=20 https://twitter.com/hashtagopen/status/1369022572671733769?s... has experienced a network protocol violation that cannot be repaired. Is twitter going further down the block / ban route now? I also ponder if twitter really does ban everyone that has ever talked about violence how many others will be booted in the weeks ahead. Then where will people go to vote up their favorite songs. Just some occasional pondering. edited to add some ' ' - and fix a mispelled word.

willio58 6y ago
As someone who has used tinder in the past, no it’s not exactly what you describe it as. Sure, you might be able to find immediate sex if you are lucky and attractive, but it’s not so easy. Grindr, from what I’ve heard from my gay friends who use it, is a lot more casual. Most profiles I came across on tinder specifically mentioned that they were not on it for a short term thing.
- stevenicr 6y ago
  Thanks for the viewpoint on this. My understanding of the app comes from several guy friends and many girl-friends that seem to use the app for finding sex tonight. Also running around as a part time lyft driver for a year or more, in a city that has rampant tourism, I have been quite amazed at how many people were meeting up with or leaving hotels/airbnbs with stories of just got in town and got on tinder and ... with some person from some other random state with same kind of story. Even though we are bachelorette capital (unofficial) of the country, I have yet to hear about an upcoming wedding that started with a meetup via tinder. I understand I am a small data point in millions, so this proves nothing - but my limited understanding. Maybe my add in point would be that it very much depends on where you are as to the expectations of said app usage. And now that I think about this along with your statement and some of the other dating info I have learned from reading HN over the years.. perhaps time of day and location are very important factors. Certainly tinder usage in a town of 500 is different that the options in a city 3 million. I am now considering that tinder usage at 1am leads to a different type of meetup than say the desires of someone getting on there at 6pm as well. I'd love to see some stats from them like okcupid use to share. What ever the percentage, I think we can assume that most people who meet up via tinder probably have sex before wasting too much - as say compared to a dating app like Devout-Christian-Family-Singles or such.. It's been a fairly shared knowledge I think in these parts anyhow, that if you want a relationship go for something like match dot com.. if you are in anything alternative dating wise okcupid, willing accept a percentage of dates will be with seriously crazy people; plentyoffish, really want to meet up tonight and see what happens, Tinder / grindr.. So I think my questioning of these policies is still fair, we don't have a list of explicit lines that google gives app/site makers. We know these things are being used for 'immoral' things - fornication, frequently, likely by the millions.. and it would be easy for google and match group to know when they are illegal as well (adultery) - so it's not a legal or moral thing they are drawing lines with. It's got to be the money (?) or a small group of googlers that are choosing to be a level or prude in some places and level of give the finger to the church and the gov in others or something. I remember some years ago when cell phone companies had actual lines drawn on a woman's butt showing how small a bikini could be for premium sms messages - when a tiny bikini was too small or not to not violate - at least those lines were drawn and shared with other for a level playing field. These days it feels like the big money incumbents have little to fear from google and it's easy for smaller niche apps / groups of people to be shunned and told to open a browser instead. Which is fine, just some things I think about once in a while.

villgax 6y ago

How much to bet if this was manually done by a conservative reviewer?

gfxgirl 6y ago
Honestly, if we could get a group of people, 4chan?, to try to complain about apps and get lots of them banned maybe there'd be more legal pressure to stop Google and Apple being the arbiters of what's allowed on your phone.
- asmr 6y ago
  this isn't a bad idea. i'm just afraid 4chan doesn't really have that kind of strength anymore.

gizmo686 6y ago

Seems to be back: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.hashtagopen&hl=en_US&gl=US https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.hashtagope...

sedachv 6y ago

I guess this is what happens when Eric Schmidt is no longer around to set company culture: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2371719/Googles-Eric-Schmidts-open-marriage-string-exotic-lovers.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2371719/Googles-Eri...

onetimemanytime 6y ago
Or Andy Rubin to reinforce it... :)
- nindalf 6y ago
  Or that guy Drummond. Seems like polyamory was pretty mainstream among Googles leadership.
  - daniellarusso 6y ago
    There was also Forrest Timothy Hayes that was murdered on his yacht by a prostitute, and she only served 5 years.
    - sedachv 6y ago
      Forrest Hayes was a junkie and a "john" who died from a heroin overdose: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whos-to-blame-in-google-execs-od-death-2/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whos-to-blame-in-google-execs-o... I don't think it was right for Alix Tichelman to leave without calling 911, but there is also no way you can call her actions murder.
- dfgdghdf 6y ago
  Andy Rubin sexually harassed people. That's not the same thing.
  - onetimemanytime 6y ago
    Definitely not traditional though, to say the least: https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/2/20680145/android-andy-rubin-accused-cheating-fortune-sex-ring https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/2/20680145/android-andy-rubi... "...allegation that Andy supported a string of mistresses, who would often be loaned to other men in what he described as “an ownership relationship.” The complaint alleges Andy had at least five such mistresses, including one (dubbed “M”) who was “complicit with Rubin in running what appeared to be a sex ring.”

linspace 6y ago

Telcos must for example provide net neutrality and are usually not duopolies even on the same country, not to mention world wide. Are there any significant difference between them and app stores? Companies are not people, they don't have "rights". My car or my computer don't have rights. Call me humanist.

fareesh 6y ago

The "private company can do whatever it wants" crowd will not show up for this one because it doesn't suit their politics

bmarquez 6y ago
What sort of political crowd is happy with "private company can do whatever it wants"? Both the right and left get targeted by abuse of corporate/monopoly power. Both Democrat and Republican state Attorney Generals have filed antitrust lawsuits against Google.
- tomp 6y ago
  When Twitter bans Trump and Amazon bans Parler.
echelon 6y ago
This is why politics and policy shouldn't mix. Platforms can't deny service. Freedom depends on individual choice. The ACLU defended Parler. Most of the Capitol Hill planning happened on Facebook, anyway. I'm a Democrat and voted for Biden/Ossoff/Warnock, but we can't censor Republican and conservative websites. That's letting power get to our heads, and baking in this sort of status quo will bite us down the road when other entities want to censor us. Speak ill of foreign governments? I could see a world where that's prohibited. Let's not let it happen. Freedom of speech, freedom to run your software on your own device, and rules for the platforms that enhance both of these liberties.
nobodyknowsyoda 6y ago
> The "private company can do whatever it wants" crowd will not show up for this one because it doesn't suit their politics The wedding cake crowd or the violent threats one?
Griffinsauce 6y ago
Hi, they are well within their rights (as usual) but we can still say it's bs and makes no sense. The difference with the things you're likely defending is that this app does no harm and is only being blocked for puritanical reasons. Ethically they are similar but not the same.

perryizgr8 6y ago

It's ok, google has the last word on what apps they allow on their platform. If this app wants, they can build their own mobile operating system, sell billions of phones all over the world, then sell their app on their os. Or they could also try what Epic games tried (and failed). They can build their own alternate play store and host their app on it. Google is not obligated to provide a platform to everyone and anyone.

kavalg 6y ago
In legal terms yes, but monopolies should be regulated for a good reason. How about your water supply company cutting you off, because they don't like that poster on your house?
- perryizgr8 6y ago
  Google is hardly a monopoly in the mobile OS market. They have around 50% market in the US. How would you say that it is a monopoly?
  - modo_mario 6y ago
    The mobile OS market is a duopoly and only because it's the closes thing to a monopoly they can have without being broken up. Hence Google and Apple can have such high fees which sucks for consumers and app developers, etc. Within their own platform (the android app market) they are a monopoly.

bambax 6y ago

There are no solutions for suspensions from app stores. The solution is to not use app stores -- build better webapps, use the open web. We could be living in a world where no open web ever existed, where everything would be filtered through app stores and closed environments like Facebook (AOL). We need to preserve the open web, it is our most precious ressource.

lionkor 6y ago
I dont agree, personally. I believe that putting everything online is not sustainable. It might be very difficult to believe for people who earn so much that they can afford 24/7 stable and fast internet anywhere they go, but there are places where even good old broadband dsl is unstable, in the west. The reasoning of "appstore bad -> lets not use any appstores" is flawed. There are "appstores" like the ones on FOSS systems like linux (discover on Arch/Manjaro comes to mind), which show that you can make an appstore yourself. All we need is to build a cross platform, community managed app store, which allows foss and non-foss apps, with a payment system. Thats the solution, not "make it a webapp".
- jeegsy 6y ago
  As far as I can tell, a native dating app or a webapp for that matter require an active web connection for full functionality.
  - jackric 6y ago
    Should be possible to queue up profiles when online, review them offline, and sync back responses to the service when online again.
- mcv 6y ago
  It's app stores as the single gatekeeper to a platform that's bad. I think it's actually fine if there's an app store where you can get vetted apps that have some official stamp of approval from the store owner, but it's also important that that store doesn't have the monopoly to that platform. It should be possible for users to choose a different app store.

baybal2 6y ago

Should Mr. Brin, and Mr. Schmidt ban themselves then?

londons_explore 6y ago

If they removed the word "threesomes" and "kinky" it would pass review first time. Threesomes especially have become too linked to pornography.

getlawgdon 6y ago
Kink shaming at its most procedural.

dartharva 6y ago

Having the centralized app store as the only way to install apps by default was always a mistake, a blot on the elegant "hackability" of Android as a platform. I wish Google's hegemony wasn't so prevalent and common people were at least aware that they can sideload apps on their Android phones.

varispeed 6y ago
It is probably possible to sideload only because it's not popular. If people were abandoning the Play Store en masse, I think Google would remove that in no time.

euph0ria 6y ago

The company I work for has forbidden the use of Google and their services such as GCP etc. due to how they treat their Play Store developers and other customer, in particular that there never seems to be any human being that you can talk to and find out what you need to do to fix the situation. We do not want the same to occur to our servers or if there is an overflow from Play Store ban to GCP etc. The business risk is too high when you rely on Google's services. Some examples: Ban app even when competitors are similar - https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3vdpj/google-play-store-bans-polyamory-dating-app https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3vdpj/google-play-store-ban... Ban due to wrong wording - https://twitter.com/hermaritz/status/1371383715381805061 https://twitter.com/hermaritz/status/1371383715381805061 Terraria banned - https://twitter.com/Demilogic/status/1358661840402845696 https://twitter.com/Demilogic/status/1358661840402845696 New project banned - https://medium.com/@amton15127/why-you-should-not-use-fireba https://medium.com/@amton15127/why-you-should-not-use-fireba... Google bans company - https://www.reddit.com/r/tifu/comments/8kvias/tifu_by_gettin https://www.reddit.com/r/tifu/comments/8kvias/tifu_by_gettin... Google bans mail - https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-serf-on-googles-farm https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-serf-on-googles-farm Ban app for communicating changes during covid - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23221447 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23221447 Adwords ban - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23224791 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23224791 Serverpunch bad support - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17431609 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17431609 Delete app - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20826618 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20826618 Google bans game with pandemic - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23229073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23229073 Google bans dev with no recourse - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15197357 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15197357

eric4smith 6y ago

On a side note... (side note!! sheesh!) "Polyamory ...is the practice of, or desire for, intimate relationships with more than one partner, with the informed consent of all partners involved" Sounds good, and has been the case for thousands of years. But modern dating apps and social media are pushing us back to this practice in quite a big (and informal) way. Its innate female nature for women to choose the best men (height, fitness, wealth, status, strength), and that's a good thing for the species! But before the advent of social media and dating apps, they would settle for just average guys too. Dating apps and social media has made it so that all women can now access that top 20% of men quite easily and completely ignore the bottom 80%. This has lead to the counterculture rise of red pill, incel, mg-tow, etc. I'm not on this one side or the other. I'm just noticing there are more Polyamory type apps and behavior out there now, driven by technology. Do you notice it too?

hasmolo 6y ago
i don’t think that increased access to “top tier” men is the root cause of this feeling. it seems to me like choices for women around partners were largely made for them for most of history. this led to men from wealth and power to define the “good” traits. the traits we defined were largely based on status. now that access to people with these traits is no longer based on who a woman’s guardian knows, but what’s available in the market a lot of dudes feel left out. i really think this is an issue men caused, entrenched into our society, and then shot themselves in the foot when they lost control of the market supply. if you don’t want the 80/20 thing to exist, stop furthering the narrative and push for non-physical traits to have the greatest value. i think an emotionally available, driven and focused, and caring person is way better for a partner than a hot rich one. as long as most people don’t feel that way we are stuck in the system we built ourselves
- DC1350 6y ago
  You're kind of right. A lot of marriages were historically done for reasons other than love. Most women aren't sexually attracted to their husbands but they still needed a provider. Now that women are economic equals to men they have no reason to ever settle for guys they don't like, which is most guys. If you've ever seen a woman use a dating app you know that they're all flooded with dozens of messages from hot guys who would love to have sex with them but would never considering marrying them. So women who don't need to marry average guys are happy to wait their turn for a sexual encounter with a top guy instead of giving a regular guy a chance. The idea that we have the ability to "push" for what's desirable makes no sense at all and it's not possible.

williesleg 6y ago

I only love google, not apple.

dqpb 6y ago

Why is there a ban on sexual content? Why is there not a ban on violent content?

DC1350 6y ago

This is pointless. The insecure nerds at Google need to get with the times instead of abusing their power like this to maintain their status. If you work at Google your wife will eventually have a boyfriend. Unless you want to be treated like a barbarian it's something you need to accept. Her body, her choice. Stop trying to control who your partner can have sex with.

ElectricMind 6y ago

It is simple. I know it is unfair and we all can cry. But they own android > they own app store > You can cry 24x7 > Nothing will happen.

nelsonmandela 6y ago

>Co-founders Amanda Wilson and David Epstein >David Epstein Why am I not surprised