5 ms·

This is absolutely outrageous and disgusting from Google. I cannot believe how at the rate the world is changing (pace wise, with each new technological breakth

This is absolutely outrageous and disgusting from Google. I cannot believe how at the rate the world is changing (pace wise, with each new technological breakthrough) the law simply cannot keep pace. We've allowed AI systems unfettered, unrestricted access to our lives. AI is being deployed with absolutely no oversight (Apple's CSAM comes to mind), I'm not even sure there are any laws at all. How can apple just deploy a new system without having to first go through the courts? We all know at some point someone will lodge a suit against them for an inaccurate match... Decisions like this must be deferred to a human, who creates a record and is capable in case anything untoward happens. AI seems exempt from any liability (this is probably why so many places are deploying such systems, as a society it seems we've decided that no matter what good or bad may happen "AI" gets a free pass and no human will likely go to jail, even if your self driving car kills you). The fact you can be deprived due to a mistaken software error is one of the most awful things in our society, and this has happened far too many times for it to go ignored time and again. But as I've said on HN before this thread will eventually disappear in a few hours until next time. How many more times must threads like this be posted to HN before we DEMAND action be taken? See you next month ;).

Phrodo_00 5y ago
Why are you assuming this is an AI-driven decision? It looks like human intervention to me.
- aboringusername 5y ago
  Isn't it safer to assume it is until proven otherwise? A developer has their app removed, perhaps their livelihood, and Google can't be fucked to sign off who made the decision? If it was a human I expect to know who, and who I can write to so it can be reviewed, by another human. I want to know how I can contact a human for support and not some useless AI chat bot that seem to be all the rage these days (looking at you Amazon...) But yes, it's happened so much by AI you just assume these days...like a YouTube takedown for example by a bot.
  - ribosometronome 5y ago
    How do you know Phrodo_00 isn't an AI?
  - craftinator 5y ago
    How do you know you aren't an AI?
    - visarga 5y ago
      Ask yourself a tricky question, if you can answer you're an AI. AI's don't actually know when they don't know something. It's called the "softmax curse", causes them to have Dunning–Kruger.
itake 5y ago
Can you please elaborate why you would think this is a mistake and Google should side step the app store rules applied to all businesses? This income is clearly taxable. The play store offers a 50% discount for small apps. Is it because the payment is optional (and doesn't unlock new features) that make you think this should be except from Google's rules (and potentially taxes?)?
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > Can you please elaborate why you would think this is a mistake and Google should side step the app store rules applied to all businesses? I don't think anyone is arguing for this app in particular to get an exception from the rules. People are arguing that this rule is ridiculous and that nobody should have to follow it as it's currently written.
- miloignis 5y ago
  Apparently this isn't how Google sees it, but I'd say yes, giving people a way to donate on your website where your website is linked to from the app under "About" or "More Information" is clearly different from offering an app for purchase, or with in-app purchase, on multiple fronts. The first is that it's a donation, not a purchase, and changes nothing about the app. The second is that there's no mention of donation anywhere in the app, and the website/about/more info link does go to a website with more info. If you instead, like Google, decide that this still counts, you end up the in the (in my opinion, clearly wrong) situation where Google either controls what you put on your independent website, or Google disallows you from linking to your website/portfolio in the app you made. That sounds quite draconian to me. I wonder if adding an in-app purchase that says "donate w/cut to Google" would appease them.
  - DennisAleynikov 5y ago
    it seems you're spiritually correct but google is trying to remove the payment loophole that apple enforces as well so I'm curious if we can pressure them both to allow donation links even if normal payment options are banned...
- 5y ago
rvz 5y ago
> This is absolutely outrageous and disgusting from Google This is Google. At this point this is expected behaviour from one of the Big Tech Tyrants, Over [0] and over [1] and over [2] again [3] multiple [4] times [5]. Unless we seriously break it up, they will never change and the suspensions will continue. Like Facebook, when you are banned by their AI moderation tools, there is little redemption and it's unlikely they will give the account back; since you don't even own it. Once again, these tyrants are NOT your friends. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26488655 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26488655 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25693679 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25693679 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22334537 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22334537 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24984408 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24984408 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24304275 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24304275 [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25964226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25964226
- userbinator 5y ago
  tyrants That old saying about patriots and tyrants comes to mind...
- fao_ 5y ago
  I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted -- the top comment and highest rated replies are bikeshedding about AI, you're actually showing that this is a pattern of shitty behaviour by Google.
davisr 5y ago
> How many more times must threads like this be posted to HN before we DEMAND action be taken? I completely agree with you, but do realize that the majority of hacker newses are coders (not even programmers) who would never take responsibility for their shoddy work. Heavens forbid they, or their management, be held personally liable for their mistakes. They won't even call defects, "defects"--they're just "bugs"! Whoopsies! What could they be hiding in all that proprietary code--incompetence, malice, or both?
- alpaca128 5y ago
  The word bug has nothing to do with someone's stance on "defects". This term has been in use (with the same meaning) for longer than computers exist. It also has no connection to bugs as in animals. But what do I know, I'm just a shoddy coder.
hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
I'm sorry for being nitpicky but have you even skimmed the article? It has nothing to do with AI: a human visited their website and decided asking for donations there violates the Play Store ToS. I mean your comment is perfectly fine, it simply has nothing to do with the article.
- croes 5y ago
  Could still have been an AI that automatically visits all sites and subsites in an App and scans for certain keyword and makes screenshots
  - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    I bet most of the people reading these comments could actually write such a script in under 30 minutes, it has nothing to do with AI. Edit: To be fair I can't imagine a situation where it would ever make sense. The link-depth in this case was 2. This is just bad behavior on the part of Google.
  - mdoms 5y ago
    This is completely speculative.
    - croes 5y ago
      Just like the claim that a human visited the site and found a donation subsite. What's more likely? That someone at google checked the links in a small relatively unknown app or that an automatic process scanned the links in the app, something what is the main business of Google next to advertising?
      - visarga 5y ago
        If I was in charge of monitoring compliance I would write the Paypal link checker bot in my first day of work.
k33l3r4pp 5y ago
How about we just stop 100% trusting Google?
geofft 5y ago
A human did this. See the screenshots on the post - there's a screenshot of the home page, followed by a screenshot of the donation page, followed by a screenshot of PayPal. Quoting TFA: > That's right; someone at Google reviewed this app, visited the LT website, scrolled to the very bottom of the page, and clicked through twice to find a way to contribute funds to the project. Our app isn't allowed to link to the homepage of the project's own website unless we completely remove our users' ability to discover a way to give us money." So that's the answer to your question. AI is irrelevant here because existing processes that are performed by humans are unaccountable or unjust, too. (This is my problem with "AI foom" doomsaying, by the way: we've clearly gotten to a point without AI where groups of humans, acting in individually rational ways, have built a monstrous system that nobody can either understand in its entirety or effectively oppose. We got there centuries ago, for that matter, at least as far back as when the phrase "invisible hand" was invented. The problem here is not that we have moved accountability from a human to an AI, it's that we've moved accountability from a human to a corporation, and it is quite obviously unjust to hold the individual anonymous Google reviewer responsible for accurately following the instructions of their minimum-wage job, but we also have no way to find the PM or exec who wrote these policies and they probably don't even know what the impact of those policies is.)
dang 5y ago
Please don't fulminate or call names on HN, regardless of how you feel about app store policies. Instead, please make your substantive points thoughtfully. All this is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. > But as I've said on HN before this thread will eventually disappear in a few hours until next time. HN has had tons of threads on these general topics. They are heavily discussed in this forum and spend plenty of time on the front page. Maybe some such threads have been flagged—most likely that would be because users get tired of repetition. If you've developed the impression that the topic is somehow being suppressed, that's probably because you've overgeneralized from a few data points (or one) that you saw on some occasion(s). https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20dislike%20notice&sort=byDate&type=story&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Phrodo_00 5y ago

Why are you assuming this is an AI-driven decision? It looks like human intervention to me.

aboringusername 5y ago
Isn't it safer to assume it is until proven otherwise? A developer has their app removed, perhaps their livelihood, and Google can't be fucked to sign off who made the decision? If it was a human I expect to know who, and who I can write to so it can be reviewed, by another human. I want to know how I can contact a human for support and not some useless AI chat bot that seem to be all the rage these days (looking at you Amazon...) But yes, it's happened so much by AI you just assume these days...like a YouTube takedown for example by a bot.
- ribosometronome 5y ago
  How do you know Phrodo_00 isn't an AI?
- craftinator 5y ago
  How do you know you aren't an AI?
  - visarga 5y ago
    Ask yourself a tricky question, if you can answer you're an AI. AI's don't actually know when they don't know something. It's called the "softmax curse", causes them to have Dunning–Kruger.

itake 5y ago

Can you please elaborate why you would think this is a mistake and Google should side step the app store rules applied to all businesses? This income is clearly taxable. The play store offers a 50% discount for small apps. Is it because the payment is optional (and doesn't unlock new features) that make you think this should be except from Google's rules (and potentially taxes?)?

josephcsible 5y ago
> Can you please elaborate why you would think this is a mistake and Google should side step the app store rules applied to all businesses? I don't think anyone is arguing for this app in particular to get an exception from the rules. People are arguing that this rule is ridiculous and that nobody should have to follow it as it's currently written.
miloignis 5y ago
Apparently this isn't how Google sees it, but I'd say yes, giving people a way to donate on your website where your website is linked to from the app under "About" or "More Information" is clearly different from offering an app for purchase, or with in-app purchase, on multiple fronts. The first is that it's a donation, not a purchase, and changes nothing about the app. The second is that there's no mention of donation anywhere in the app, and the website/about/more info link does go to a website with more info. If you instead, like Google, decide that this still counts, you end up the in the (in my opinion, clearly wrong) situation where Google either controls what you put on your independent website, or Google disallows you from linking to your website/portfolio in the app you made. That sounds quite draconian to me. I wonder if adding an in-app purchase that says "donate w/cut to Google" would appease them.
- DennisAleynikov 5y ago
  it seems you're spiritually correct but google is trying to remove the payment loophole that apple enforces as well so I'm curious if we can pressure them both to allow donation links even if normal payment options are banned...
5y ago

rvz 5y ago

> This is absolutely outrageous and disgusting from Google This is Google. At this point this is expected behaviour from one of the Big Tech Tyrants, Over [0] and over [1] and over [2] again [3] multiple [4] times [5]. Unless we seriously break it up, they will never change and the suspensions will continue. Like Facebook, when you are banned by their AI moderation tools, there is little redemption and it's unlikely they will give the account back; since you don't even own it. Once again, these tyrants are NOT your friends. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26488655 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26488655 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25693679 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25693679 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22334537 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22334537 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24984408 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24984408 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24304275 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24304275 [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25964226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25964226

userbinator 5y ago
tyrants That old saying about patriots and tyrants comes to mind...
fao_ 5y ago
I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted -- the top comment and highest rated replies are bikeshedding about AI, you're actually showing that this is a pattern of shitty behaviour by Google.

davisr 5y ago

> How many more times must threads like this be posted to HN before we DEMAND action be taken? I completely agree with you, but do realize that the majority of hacker newses are coders (not even programmers) who would never take responsibility for their shoddy work. Heavens forbid they, or their management, be held personally liable for their mistakes. They won't even call defects, "defects"--they're just "bugs"! Whoopsies! What could they be hiding in all that proprietary code--incompetence, malice, or both?

alpaca128 5y ago
The word bug has nothing to do with someone's stance on "defects". This term has been in use (with the same meaning) for longer than computers exist. It also has no connection to bugs as in animals. But what do I know, I'm just a shoddy coder.

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago

I'm sorry for being nitpicky but have you even skimmed the article? It has nothing to do with AI: a human visited their website and decided asking for donations there violates the Play Store ToS. I mean your comment is perfectly fine, it simply has nothing to do with the article.

croes 5y ago
Could still have been an AI that automatically visits all sites and subsites in an App and scans for certain keyword and makes screenshots
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  I bet most of the people reading these comments could actually write such a script in under 30 minutes, it has nothing to do with AI. Edit: To be fair I can't imagine a situation where it would ever make sense. The link-depth in this case was 2. This is just bad behavior on the part of Google.
- mdoms 5y ago
  This is completely speculative.
  - croes 5y ago
    Just like the claim that a human visited the site and found a donation subsite. What's more likely? That someone at google checked the links in a small relatively unknown app or that an automatic process scanned the links in the app, something what is the main business of Google next to advertising?
    - visarga 5y ago
      If I was in charge of monitoring compliance I would write the Paypal link checker bot in my first day of work.

k33l3r4pp 5y ago

How about we just stop 100% trusting Google?

geofft 5y ago

A human did this. See the screenshots on the post - there's a screenshot of the home page, followed by a screenshot of the donation page, followed by a screenshot of PayPal. Quoting TFA: > That's right; someone at Google reviewed this app, visited the LT website, scrolled to the very bottom of the page, and clicked through twice to find a way to contribute funds to the project. Our app isn't allowed to link to the homepage of the project's own website unless we completely remove our users' ability to discover a way to give us money." So that's the answer to your question. AI is irrelevant here because existing processes that are performed by humans are unaccountable or unjust, too. (This is my problem with "AI foom" doomsaying, by the way: we've clearly gotten to a point without AI where groups of humans, acting in individually rational ways, have built a monstrous system that nobody can either understand in its entirety or effectively oppose. We got there centuries ago, for that matter, at least as far back as when the phrase "invisible hand" was invented. The problem here is not that we have moved accountability from a human to an AI, it's that we've moved accountability from a human to a corporation, and it is quite obviously unjust to hold the individual anonymous Google reviewer responsible for accurately following the instructions of their minimum-wage job, but we also have no way to find the PM or exec who wrote these policies and they probably don't even know what the impact of those policies is.)

dang 5y ago

Please don't fulminate or call names on HN, regardless of how you feel about app store policies. Instead, please make your substantive points thoughtfully. All this is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. > But as I've said on HN before this thread will eventually disappear in a few hours until next time. HN has had tons of threads on these general topics. They are heavily discussed in this forum and spend plenty of time on the front page. Maybe some such threads have been flagged—most likely that would be because users get tired of repetition. If you've developed the impression that the topic is somehow being suppressed, that's probably because you've overgeneralized from a few data points (or one) that you saw on some occasion(s). https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20dislike%20notice&sort=byDate&type=story&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...