5 ms·

If they ban a client for the content it can access, why don't they ban web browsers entirely ? Google Chrome allows access to illegal and hateful content too.

dmos62 6y ago
They should ban all devices, because at the end of the day you can circumvent any other ban.
- Proziam 6y ago
  Going one further, you can circumvent this ban too :)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
thefounder 6y ago
It's just a matter of time
- syshum 6y ago
  They will never bann chrome, but I am sure they wills start banning lesser known browsers that are not Chrome, Edge, and Firefox...
  - rileymat2 6y ago
    In some sense the Apple rules requiring you use webkit internally is already a Chrome and firefox ban on ios.
    - mannerheim 6y ago
      Especially fun when you have to deal with Safari bugs.
  - userbinator 6y ago
    Thanks to the effective monopoly, anything other than those browsers are already quite unusable for app-sites.
- numpad0 6y ago
  “Why oppress X but not Y, it’s a double standard” And both goes. That’s only logical.
simion314 6y ago
For sure the Youtube app won't be banned even if illegal stuff might be posted there.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
skinkestek 6y ago
ssssh...! Don't give them ideas!
cbradford 6y ago
They will do this. Firefox is starting with their extensions to block content that the devs are biased against. Very soon only web browsers that censor to their bias will be allowed in the play store.
- DocTomoe 6y ago
  Huh? Do you have some more information on the Firefox bias blocking?
  - barbacoa 6y ago
    I believe GP is referring to: https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/firefox-b-tch-to-boss-extension/ https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/firefox-b-tch-to-boss-exten... Basically a bad word filter. But to GP's point the way things are going don't be surprised if extensions like these are someday set to default on.
    - DocTomoe 6y ago
      Sure ... but society would adapt and make replacement words as derogatory as the words they replaced. The euphemism treadmill is a well-observed phenomenon. I am glad my immediate worry about active suppression of information is not yet necessary.
      - barbacoa 6y ago
        Idiot, imbecile, and moron used to be medical terms. Then they got associated with being derogatory and people started using retarded as the new PC term. Not that long ago I got chastised for saying someone who sustained brain damage was now mentally retarded.
matsemann 6y ago
Chrome, YouTube etc are safe. Their competition, however..
INTPenis 6y ago
This was mentioned earlier in the year when Element client was banned. Google Chrome can load the Element client in the browser and access all the same content. It's probably just a bad AI trying to help Google manage a massive platform. It's just sad to think about all the developers who can't call on a Twitter following to get their app unbanned quickly.
- bordercases 6y ago
  > It's probably just a bad AI trying to help Google manage a massive platform. It's just sad to think about all the developers who can't call on a Twitter following to get their app unbanned quickly. How do you think that inference works? Through pattern matching "Mastodon" then raising a flag. Who sets the pattern?
soundnote 6y ago
For the same reasons Khamenei can tweet that an entire country is a malign tumor and needs to be removed and eradicated and Twitter is still in the stores. For the same reasons silly places like Parler get nuked on Jan 6th pretenses when most of the planning happened on Facebook but Facebook's still there. Power's power, and Lenin's question of who/whom is always relevant.
- notsuoh 6y ago
  Partially a percentage of badness fits into the equation too, though. It's not as reducible as you're implying. Facebook, as much as I dislike it, is mostly people sharing memes and life updates with some terrorist planning that is to some extent actively hunted and removed. Parlor is the opposite, except that the conspiracies are encouraged, and indeed the company was built on this philosophy. Surely this is a relevant distinction?
  - soundnote 6y ago
    It depends in part on what you consider to be fact. Part of the problem of the modern day is that the two tribes have in parts wildly diverging views on reality (and by my estimate both believe in some very nonsensical things), and the mainstream outlets very much encourage leftist brands of nonsense. The other issue is that if the mainstream thing bans certain things, any free speech alternative will be excessively populated by the witches the mainstream platform hunted. This is inevitable especially if the platform is convenient enough to be competitive. Which is a little tragic since a bunch of the banned people don't get banned just for politically dissenting thought but just plain awful behavior even by other standards. Regardless, it's inevitable, so painting alt platforms as hives of scum and villainy and thus cutting them down being justified more or less ensures that alt platforms won't come to exist in a relevant way. The fringe spaces will only get less silly if they're allowed to live and we can talk to people. Being able to talk with civilized people doesn't cure political disagreement or argument, but it lets you see the human on the other side of the nickname. I actively hunt interesting people across the political landscape to follow for that reason. Besides, I'm likely to learn something I otherwise wouldn't have from someone reasoned that I disagree with. People with shared politics only go so far. But people also need comfortable base camps from which to explore.

dmos62 6y ago

They should ban all devices, because at the end of the day you can circumvent any other ban.

Proziam 6y ago
Going one further, you can circumvent this ban too :)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

thefounder 6y ago

It's just a matter of time

syshum 6y ago
They will never bann chrome, but I am sure they wills start banning lesser known browsers that are not Chrome, Edge, and Firefox...
- rileymat2 6y ago
  In some sense the Apple rules requiring you use webkit internally is already a Chrome and firefox ban on ios.
  - mannerheim 6y ago
    Especially fun when you have to deal with Safari bugs.
- userbinator 6y ago
  Thanks to the effective monopoly, anything other than those browsers are already quite unusable for app-sites.
numpad0 6y ago
“Why oppress X but not Y, it’s a double standard” And both goes. That’s only logical.

simion314 6y ago

For sure the Youtube app won't be banned even if illegal stuff might be posted there.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

skinkestek 6y ago

ssssh...! Don't give them ideas!

cbradford 6y ago

They will do this. Firefox is starting with their extensions to block content that the devs are biased against. Very soon only web browsers that censor to their bias will be allowed in the play store.

DocTomoe 6y ago
Huh? Do you have some more information on the Firefox bias blocking?
- barbacoa 6y ago
  I believe GP is referring to: https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/firefox-b-tch-to-boss-extension/ https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/firefox-b-tch-to-boss-exten... Basically a bad word filter. But to GP's point the way things are going don't be surprised if extensions like these are someday set to default on.
  - DocTomoe 6y ago
    Sure ... but society would adapt and make replacement words as derogatory as the words they replaced. The euphemism treadmill is a well-observed phenomenon. I am glad my immediate worry about active suppression of information is not yet necessary.
    - barbacoa 6y ago
      Idiot, imbecile, and moron used to be medical terms. Then they got associated with being derogatory and people started using retarded as the new PC term. Not that long ago I got chastised for saying someone who sustained brain damage was now mentally retarded.

matsemann 6y ago

Chrome, YouTube etc are safe. Their competition, however..

INTPenis 6y ago

This was mentioned earlier in the year when Element client was banned. Google Chrome can load the Element client in the browser and access all the same content. It's probably just a bad AI trying to help Google manage a massive platform. It's just sad to think about all the developers who can't call on a Twitter following to get their app unbanned quickly.

bordercases 6y ago
> It's probably just a bad AI trying to help Google manage a massive platform. It's just sad to think about all the developers who can't call on a Twitter following to get their app unbanned quickly. How do you think that inference works? Through pattern matching "Mastodon" then raising a flag. Who sets the pattern?

soundnote 6y ago

For the same reasons Khamenei can tweet that an entire country is a malign tumor and needs to be removed and eradicated and Twitter is still in the stores. For the same reasons silly places like Parler get nuked on Jan 6th pretenses when most of the planning happened on Facebook but Facebook's still there. Power's power, and Lenin's question of who/whom is always relevant.

notsuoh 6y ago
Partially a percentage of badness fits into the equation too, though. It's not as reducible as you're implying. Facebook, as much as I dislike it, is mostly people sharing memes and life updates with some terrorist planning that is to some extent actively hunted and removed. Parlor is the opposite, except that the conspiracies are encouraged, and indeed the company was built on this philosophy. Surely this is a relevant distinction?
- soundnote 6y ago
  It depends in part on what you consider to be fact. Part of the problem of the modern day is that the two tribes have in parts wildly diverging views on reality (and by my estimate both believe in some very nonsensical things), and the mainstream outlets very much encourage leftist brands of nonsense. The other issue is that if the mainstream thing bans certain things, any free speech alternative will be excessively populated by the witches the mainstream platform hunted. This is inevitable especially if the platform is convenient enough to be competitive. Which is a little tragic since a bunch of the banned people don't get banned just for politically dissenting thought but just plain awful behavior even by other standards. Regardless, it's inevitable, so painting alt platforms as hives of scum and villainy and thus cutting them down being justified more or less ensures that alt platforms won't come to exist in a relevant way. The fringe spaces will only get less silly if they're allowed to live and we can talk to people. Being able to talk with civilized people doesn't cure political disagreement or argument, but it lets you see the human on the other side of the nickname. I actively hunt interesting people across the political landscape to follow for that reason. Besides, I'm likely to learn something I otherwise wouldn't have from someone reasoned that I disagree with. People with shared politics only go so far. But people also need comfortable base camps from which to explore.