11 ms·

Google blocks Truth Social from the Play Store

45 points by unripe_syntax 4y ago

somecommit 4y ago
Twitter is so safe in comparison...
- toofy 4y ago
  i think the difference is likely that twitter makes genuine, good-faith attempts at mitigating calls for violence.
  - DuskStar 4y ago
    > twitter makes genuine, good-faith attempts at mitigating calls for violence. ...when they're made by people with the wrong opinions or politics. Attackers from the left seem to get the benefit of the doubt.
    - boboralice 4y ago
      I'd agree with this. I'm mostly left of center but occasionally I'll agree with something conservative. I've had horrible threats after those posts and Twitter did nothing.
    - toofy 4y ago
      can you show us example tweets where the left has called for violence where they have remained up?
  - dapf 4y ago
    After years of intemperate tweets, Twitter decided to ban Trump on January 6th because of a video when he was talking people to stand down and go back home. I saw the video. Why? That video could have prevented the mob from trespassing the congress building.
    - wumpus 4y ago
      Twitter's recounting of the story disagrees with you: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio... I'll take their word over yours.
      - dapf 4y ago
      - dapf 4y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32688746 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32688746
      - upsidesinclude 4y ago
        What word? They don't supply any evidence regarding this discussion in your linked page.
    - toofy 4y ago
      i’m not sure that is an accurate timeline of what actually happened—at least from what i’ve read.
      - dapf 4y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32688746 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32688746
    - therouwboat 4y ago
      But he was banned 2 days after the attack? Not to mention that he is still talking about stolen election. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
      - dapf 4y ago
        On Jan 6th the tweet/video I'm referring to was removed and Trump couldn't post any more tweets. Maybe that is called freezing the account instead of banning it? IDK.
qabqabaca 4y ago
Is the issue here that all republican/right-wing biased platforms and influencers encourage hate-speech? Or simply that the platforms with the ability to block access to these services have a liberal bias and it suits their agenda better? I am not right-wing nor am I even American, but at this stage I'm of the opinion that these bans are coordinated attacks. Watching Trump get banned from every social platform within two or three days for inciting an insurrection offline left a bad taste in my mouth. A similar thing has just happened to Andrew Tate. It also happens all the time with right-wing subreddits. Why are right-wing communities not allowed to flourish online like left-leaning ones?
- timeon 4y ago
  I do not think that it is "all republican/right-wing" platforms. It is just that these are more amplified because of former POTUS.
  - qabqabaca 4y ago
    That's exactly my point. How can something like 4chan still exist online? There have been multiple mass-shooters bred there. It also used to be known for extremely questionable adult content. Why do Trumps preferred platforms get taken down but not this?
    - Kbelicius 4y ago
      > How can something like 4chan still exist online? Has google removed truthsocial from the internet? Does 4chan have an app in play store?
    - timeon 4y ago
      Well your probably have point but I was not clear in my comment. What I wanted to say is that Republican / right-wing platforms exists without extremists it is just that former president brought them to the spotlight. That is also why you mention 4-chan while we are talking about Republican / right-wing platforms which I thing normally would not be fair for them - as all sides do have extreme parts. But it is how it is now.
encryptluks2 4y ago
I see reddit spreading just as much dangerous disinformation and failing to moderate posts encouraging illegal acts. Either they are protected under section 230 or not, and if they are then law enforcement is the appropriate organization to take action against users conducting illegal acts. Google will gladly claim section 230 exemptions if the actions take place on their service, yet the feel entitled to complain about another services content moderation? I guess it is their right to deny access to the Google Play store, but I feel like legislation was needed yesterday that requires phone providers provide options for an alternative store with the same automatic updates feature. Google allows alternative stores, but doesn't provide a way for users that I'm aware to keep apps up-to-date from unknown sources even if they are using a third-party store that does their own verification. Apple on the other hand goes even further, so it is difficult to be over critical at just Google in this regard.
- andybak 4y ago
  > I see reddit spreading just as much dangerous disinformation and failing to moderate posts encouraging illegal acts. Interesting you say that. A lot of vocal redditors seem to think that Reddit has embraced censorship rather too actively.
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    It is selective censorship that I think is used to fuel more divide between political parties in an effort to enact a more authoritarian regime globally.
    - andybak 4y ago
      And I think that sounds like delusional thinking. Each to their own. Global cabals pulling the puppet strings has never really struck me as plausible in it's more intricate form. (I would buy the most banal version - money like money and power likes keeping power - but that's merely stating a truism rather than validating the existence of a conspiracy)
      - 4y ago
EB-Barrington 4y ago
I have literally called for the death of a well known politician on Facebook and Twitter. My posts still stand. I'm against censorship - fortunately I'm calling for the death of a right wing politician, hence that's ok - as the internet is not so accommodating to those who lean right.
- andybak 4y ago
  Or possibly, your post was overlooked. No-one is claiming that "100% of posts that fail to meet the rules are removed". How do you know that you weren't just "lucky"?
- pyronite 4y ago
  > as the internet is not so accommodating to those who lean right. Keep an eye on https://twitter.com/facebookstop10 https://twitter.com/facebookstop10 and you may change your mind.
TekMol 4y ago
Why is the website georestricted? When I go to www.truthsocial.com, I get "At the moment, Truth Social is available for U.S. users only". How would they know if I am a "U.S. user"? What they seem to do is block everyone who is not in the U.S. Why that? Trying some different IPs shows another dynamic behavior: If the IP is from California, they show a "Let's get started!" button. When the IP is from Ireland, they show a "Registration closed" button instead.
- wombarly 4y ago
  Means they don't have to deal with laws of other countries.
  - TekMol 4y ago
    Is that really how "laws of other countries" work? People from all around the world can visit the US or get a US IP via some other mechanism (by using a cloud browser for example) and then they will see the content anyhow. With the infamous GDPR for example, it does not matter if you georestrict your content. If you track someone from a European country without their consent, no matter where they are, you are violating the GDPR.
    - cuteboy19 4y ago
      Of course in the marginal cases. But even simple restrictions greatly reduce liability. And anyways running afoul of gdpr will not affect you much if you don't plan to do business in the EU
      - wumpus 4y ago
        Showing an ad to an EU citizen or someone in the EU is doing business in the EU, says the EU. But indeed, you are correct that geoblocks reduce liability.
        cuteboy19 4y ago
bilekas 4y ago
> Google reviewed Truth Social’s latest submission to the Play Store, it found multiple policy violations, which it informed Truth Social about on August 19 > “Last week, Truth Social wrote back acknowledging our feedback and saying that they are working on addressing these issues,” I don't think it matters what the topic of the application is, if you're breaking policies, you're not going to be approved. Apples ecosystem is different and seems to have already been approved, maybe they use a different source code for iOS which follows their policies. Title implies that it was blocked for political / personal reasons and that Apple might follow suit. Which it wasn't. Edit : Seems they do actually use a content filter on their iOS app which means it should pass the Apple policy. > Truth Social does use content filtering screens on iOS to hide some posts behind a click-through warning
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
upsidesinclude 4y ago
Sarah Perez, Taylor Hatmaker. Notice that they are not in any way critical of this censorship, but rather ask why more censorship has not yet occurred. Before you downvote this comment, think critically and ask yourself whether stooping to this level benefits anyone. Proving to the opposition that you won't play fair only widens the divide
- Kbelicius 4y ago
  > Proving to the opposition that you won't play fair only widens the divide What is unfair here?
  - upsidesinclude 4y ago
    It is 'unfair' of journalists to ignore the obvious story and instead write drivel. There is no question that this was politically motivated. There is absolute garbage in the play store. Google couldn't give a shit about content moderation on any other app. It is entirely disingenuous (false) to claim otherwise. That's the unfair part, I suppose. It's obvious, but those that want this to happen will gladly make up excuses for why it's legitimate. When google and apple are effectively operating as part of public forum they should no longer have the capability to censure. Yes they are private companies , but much like Bell and Westinghouse there comes a time when public interest is the greater concern. And, you not liking other people's opinions isn't a good enough reason to silence them.
    - Kbelicius 4y ago
      > It is 'unfair' of journalists to ignore the obvious story and instead write drivel. And what is this obvious story that is being ignored? The one I'm seeing here is that Truth Social is in violation of Play Stores TOS. Google even told TS how to address those problems. Interestingly, after that, TS claimed that the ball is in googles court. Seams that the drivel is coming from TS. > There is no question that this was politically motivated. Of course there is a question if this was politically motivated or not. After all, apple has allowed it on their store and there are other similar apps on play store. Don't see why not being allowed on a platform for not complying with TOS should automatically be considered politically motivated. > Google couldn't give a shit about content moderation on any other app. Do you have any sources or example of this?
upsidesinclude 4y ago
From the garbage Axios article that this garbage article sites as it's primary source [0]: >"...in response to a post from former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, an account called "TheVictim24" posted last week, ["]It's be nice if you people weren't just okay with the military and police stage a rebellion and framing civilians. Zero people trust the police and if the military comes in, we'll kill them. Someone admit this nation needs to be nuked because it's satanic.["]..." Don't like it. Not my style for sure. But honestly, that is not a wild incitement to violence, namely because it's a theoretical response to a theoretical institution of martial law. Is that really the damning content that the public must be shielded from? >"...federal investigation into Trump’s alleged mishandling of high-stakes classified information — a situation that’s already inspired real-world violence — raises the stakes on a social app where the former president is able to openly communicate to his followers in real time." Fairly high profile lawyers have already made statements to the effect that this was unprecedented and illegal (1), but take notice of the framing of the statement. The intent is to provide the impression Trump is somehow culpable for violence resultant from a DOJ investigation of himself. And, that the situation is expedient, "communicate... in real time". Shocking! Sorry, but this is a hit-piece . It doesn't acknowledge any information is even available but the contrived support for this ideology. It is disingenuous to read an article like this and then claim it to be journalism or unbiased or fair reporting. If you refuse to see that, you have a "dog in the fight". Watch this get banned now for inciting violence... 0. https://www.axios.com/2022/08/30/trump-truth-social-google-android-moderation https://www.axios.com/2022/08/30/trump-truth-social-google-a... 1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-warrant-had-no-legal-basis-mar-a-lago-affidavit-presidential-records-act-archivist-custody-classified-fbi-garland-11661170684?mod=opinion_lead_pos6 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-warrant-had-no-legal-...

45 points by unripe_syntax 4y ago

somecommit 4y ago

Twitter is so safe in comparison...

toofy 4y ago
i think the difference is likely that twitter makes genuine, good-faith attempts at mitigating calls for violence.
- DuskStar 4y ago
  > twitter makes genuine, good-faith attempts at mitigating calls for violence. ...when they're made by people with the wrong opinions or politics. Attackers from the left seem to get the benefit of the doubt.
  - boboralice 4y ago
    I'd agree with this. I'm mostly left of center but occasionally I'll agree with something conservative. I've had horrible threats after those posts and Twitter did nothing.
  - toofy 4y ago
    can you show us example tweets where the left has called for violence where they have remained up?
- dapf 4y ago
  After years of intemperate tweets, Twitter decided to ban Trump on January 6th because of a video when he was talking people to stand down and go back home. I saw the video. Why? That video could have prevented the mob from trespassing the congress building.
  - wumpus 4y ago
    Twitter's recounting of the story disagrees with you: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio... I'll take their word over yours.
    - dapf 4y ago
    - dapf 4y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32688746 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32688746
    - upsidesinclude 4y ago
      What word? They don't supply any evidence regarding this discussion in your linked page.
  - toofy 4y ago
    i’m not sure that is an accurate timeline of what actually happened—at least from what i’ve read.
    - dapf 4y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32688746 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32688746
  - therouwboat 4y ago
    But he was banned 2 days after the attack? Not to mention that he is still talking about stolen election. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
    - dapf 4y ago
      On Jan 6th the tweet/video I'm referring to was removed and Trump couldn't post any more tweets. Maybe that is called freezing the account instead of banning it? IDK.

qabqabaca 4y ago

Is the issue here that all republican/right-wing biased platforms and influencers encourage hate-speech? Or simply that the platforms with the ability to block access to these services have a liberal bias and it suits their agenda better? I am not right-wing nor am I even American, but at this stage I'm of the opinion that these bans are coordinated attacks. Watching Trump get banned from every social platform within two or three days for inciting an insurrection offline left a bad taste in my mouth. A similar thing has just happened to Andrew Tate. It also happens all the time with right-wing subreddits. Why are right-wing communities not allowed to flourish online like left-leaning ones?

timeon 4y ago
I do not think that it is "all republican/right-wing" platforms. It is just that these are more amplified because of former POTUS.
- qabqabaca 4y ago
  That's exactly my point. How can something like 4chan still exist online? There have been multiple mass-shooters bred there. It also used to be known for extremely questionable adult content. Why do Trumps preferred platforms get taken down but not this?
  - Kbelicius 4y ago
    > How can something like 4chan still exist online? Has google removed truthsocial from the internet? Does 4chan have an app in play store?
  - timeon 4y ago
    Well your probably have point but I was not clear in my comment. What I wanted to say is that Republican / right-wing platforms exists without extremists it is just that former president brought them to the spotlight. That is also why you mention 4-chan while we are talking about Republican / right-wing platforms which I thing normally would not be fair for them - as all sides do have extreme parts. But it is how it is now.

encryptluks2 4y ago

I see reddit spreading just as much dangerous disinformation and failing to moderate posts encouraging illegal acts. Either they are protected under section 230 or not, and if they are then law enforcement is the appropriate organization to take action against users conducting illegal acts. Google will gladly claim section 230 exemptions if the actions take place on their service, yet the feel entitled to complain about another services content moderation? I guess it is their right to deny access to the Google Play store, but I feel like legislation was needed yesterday that requires phone providers provide options for an alternative store with the same automatic updates feature. Google allows alternative stores, but doesn't provide a way for users that I'm aware to keep apps up-to-date from unknown sources even if they are using a third-party store that does their own verification. Apple on the other hand goes even further, so it is difficult to be over critical at just Google in this regard.

andybak 4y ago
> I see reddit spreading just as much dangerous disinformation and failing to moderate posts encouraging illegal acts. Interesting you say that. A lot of vocal redditors seem to think that Reddit has embraced censorship rather too actively.
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  It is selective censorship that I think is used to fuel more divide between political parties in an effort to enact a more authoritarian regime globally.
  - andybak 4y ago
    And I think that sounds like delusional thinking. Each to their own. Global cabals pulling the puppet strings has never really struck me as plausible in it's more intricate form. (I would buy the most banal version - money like money and power likes keeping power - but that's merely stating a truism rather than validating the existence of a conspiracy)
    - 4y ago

EB-Barrington 4y ago

I have literally called for the death of a well known politician on Facebook and Twitter. My posts still stand. I'm against censorship - fortunately I'm calling for the death of a right wing politician, hence that's ok - as the internet is not so accommodating to those who lean right.

andybak 4y ago
Or possibly, your post was overlooked. No-one is claiming that "100% of posts that fail to meet the rules are removed". How do you know that you weren't just "lucky"?
pyronite 4y ago
> as the internet is not so accommodating to those who lean right. Keep an eye on https://twitter.com/facebookstop10 https://twitter.com/facebookstop10 and you may change your mind.

TekMol 4y ago

Why is the website georestricted? When I go to www.truthsocial.com, I get "At the moment, Truth Social is available for U.S. users only". How would they know if I am a "U.S. user"? What they seem to do is block everyone who is not in the U.S. Why that? Trying some different IPs shows another dynamic behavior: If the IP is from California, they show a "Let's get started!" button. When the IP is from Ireland, they show a "Registration closed" button instead.

wombarly 4y ago
Means they don't have to deal with laws of other countries.
- TekMol 4y ago
  Is that really how "laws of other countries" work? People from all around the world can visit the US or get a US IP via some other mechanism (by using a cloud browser for example) and then they will see the content anyhow. With the infamous GDPR for example, it does not matter if you georestrict your content. If you track someone from a European country without their consent, no matter where they are, you are violating the GDPR.
  - cuteboy19 4y ago
    Of course in the marginal cases. But even simple restrictions greatly reduce liability. And anyways running afoul of gdpr will not affect you much if you don't plan to do business in the EU
    - wumpus 4y ago
      Showing an ad to an EU citizen or someone in the EU is doing business in the EU, says the EU. But indeed, you are correct that geoblocks reduce liability.
      - cuteboy19 4y ago

bilekas 4y ago

> Google reviewed Truth Social’s latest submission to the Play Store, it found multiple policy violations, which it informed Truth Social about on August 19 > “Last week, Truth Social wrote back acknowledging our feedback and saying that they are working on addressing these issues,” I don't think it matters what the topic of the application is, if you're breaking policies, you're not going to be approved. Apples ecosystem is different and seems to have already been approved, maybe they use a different source code for iOS which follows their policies. Title implies that it was blocked for political / personal reasons and that Apple might follow suit. Which it wasn't. Edit : Seems they do actually use a content filter on their iOS app which means it should pass the Apple policy. > Truth Social does use content filtering screens on iOS to hide some posts behind a click-through warning

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

upsidesinclude 4y ago

Sarah Perez, Taylor Hatmaker. Notice that they are not in any way critical of this censorship, but rather ask why more censorship has not yet occurred. Before you downvote this comment, think critically and ask yourself whether stooping to this level benefits anyone. Proving to the opposition that you won't play fair only widens the divide

Kbelicius 4y ago
> Proving to the opposition that you won't play fair only widens the divide What is unfair here?
- upsidesinclude 4y ago
  It is 'unfair' of journalists to ignore the obvious story and instead write drivel. There is no question that this was politically motivated. There is absolute garbage in the play store. Google couldn't give a shit about content moderation on any other app. It is entirely disingenuous (false) to claim otherwise. That's the unfair part, I suppose. It's obvious, but those that want this to happen will gladly make up excuses for why it's legitimate. When google and apple are effectively operating as part of public forum they should no longer have the capability to censure. Yes they are private companies , but much like Bell and Westinghouse there comes a time when public interest is the greater concern. And, you not liking other people's opinions isn't a good enough reason to silence them.
  - Kbelicius 4y ago
    > It is 'unfair' of journalists to ignore the obvious story and instead write drivel. And what is this obvious story that is being ignored? The one I'm seeing here is that Truth Social is in violation of Play Stores TOS. Google even told TS how to address those problems. Interestingly, after that, TS claimed that the ball is in googles court. Seams that the drivel is coming from TS. > There is no question that this was politically motivated. Of course there is a question if this was politically motivated or not. After all, apple has allowed it on their store and there are other similar apps on play store. Don't see why not being allowed on a platform for not complying with TOS should automatically be considered politically motivated. > Google couldn't give a shit about content moderation on any other app. Do you have any sources or example of this?

upsidesinclude 4y ago

From the garbage Axios article that this garbage article sites as it's primary source [0]: >"...in response to a post from former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, an account called "TheVictim24" posted last week, ["]It's be nice if you people weren't just okay with the military and police stage a rebellion and framing civilians. Zero people trust the police and if the military comes in, we'll kill them. Someone admit this nation needs to be nuked because it's satanic.["]..." Don't like it. Not my style for sure. But honestly, that is not a wild incitement to violence, namely because it's a theoretical response to a theoretical institution of martial law. Is that really the damning content that the public must be shielded from? >"...federal investigation into Trump’s alleged mishandling of high-stakes classified information — a situation that’s already inspired real-world violence — raises the stakes on a social app where the former president is able to openly communicate to his followers in real time." Fairly high profile lawyers have already made statements to the effect that this was unprecedented and illegal (1), but take notice of the framing of the statement. The intent is to provide the impression Trump is somehow culpable for violence resultant from a DOJ investigation of himself. And, that the situation is expedient, "communicate... in real time". Shocking! Sorry, but this is a hit-piece . It doesn't acknowledge any information is even available but the contrived support for this ideology. It is disingenuous to read an article like this and then claim it to be journalism or unbiased or fair reporting. If you refuse to see that, you have a "dog in the fight". Watch this get banned now for inciting violence... 0. https://www.axios.com/2022/08/30/trump-truth-social-google-android-moderation https://www.axios.com/2022/08/30/trump-truth-social-google-a... 1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-warrant-had-no-legal-basis-mar-a-lago-affidavit-presidential-records-act-archivist-custody-classified-fbi-garland-11661170684?mod=opinion_lead_pos6 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-warrant-had-no-legal-...