3 ms·

Respond how exactly? The last thing you want to do as an organization like this is to take action and then find out that the removal was warranted. I think it i

Respond how exactly? The last thing you want to do as an organization like this is to take action and then find out that the removal was warranted. I think it is up to the app developer to supply sufficient information to show that it was not warranted. In another posts, someone already showed where they are essentially uploading contacts to remote servers. I agree it sucks cause I had seen the app on F-Droid and it looks like it was actively developed, but the developer stopping development because of the Play Store removal doesn't help instill confidence. Otherwise, they'd just continue development and support F-Droid and alternative Play Store initiatives.

sreevisakh 4y ago
Why do the threads about FairMail contain so much misinformation? It wasn't uploading the contacts to any server. It was fetching favicons from the domains of each contact. That too was opt-in. It feels like there is an effort to discredit Fairmail here.
upofadown 4y ago
Some sort of competition related action would be the obvious answer. Google is using their market power to harass an alternative to their data collection funded services.
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  That is why it is called Play Store policies. You want to go after an anti-competitive company, at least target Apple first who won't even let you sideload apps.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    Nah we can do both.
Brian_K_White 4y ago
The developer is obligated to prove that they aren't guilty of something without being told what that thing is? Other people's detective work is just guessing. Google has not given any specific instructions, and so they cannot be followed. It IS on Google to be fair here. If the action is so hainous, then they can certainly say "this action is not allowed" so that the developer can satisfy them. List all the reasons why Google might not do that, and find a single one of them that's valid.
dingleberry420 4y ago
It's actually up to Google to prove this, both logically and legally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32019R1150#d1e1069-57-1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
alaricus 4y ago

sreevisakh 4y ago

Why do the threads about FairMail contain so much misinformation? It wasn't uploading the contacts to any server. It was fetching favicons from the domains of each contact. That too was opt-in. It feels like there is an effort to discredit Fairmail here.

upofadown 4y ago

Some sort of competition related action would be the obvious answer. Google is using their market power to harass an alternative to their data collection funded services.

encryptluks2 4y ago
That is why it is called Play Store policies. You want to go after an anti-competitive company, at least target Apple first who won't even let you sideload apps.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  Nah we can do both.

Brian_K_White 4y ago

The developer is obligated to prove that they aren't guilty of something without being told what that thing is? Other people's detective work is just guessing. Google has not given any specific instructions, and so they cannot be followed. It IS on Google to be fair here. If the action is so hainous, then they can certainly say "this action is not allowed" so that the developer can satisfy them. List all the reasons why Google might not do that, and find a single one of them that's valid.

dingleberry420 4y ago

It's actually up to Google to prove this, both logically and legally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32019R1150#d1e1069-57-1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...

alaricus 4y ago