undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnewacct5835y ago0 comments

They didn't remove Podcast Addict, it's right here: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bambuna.po...

That was a mistake, presumably. It's likely this is too. The deep desire on the part of posters here to assume malice and scream CENSORSHIP is really off-putting.

I actually don't know anything about fediverse, but if it's like other pseudoanonymous obscure communications media it's probably filled with awful stuff. It's not that hard to imagine a naive reviewer who doesn't understand the architecture to be confused if they get a report showing screenshots of the app with the content available in it.

0 comments

8 comments · 5 top-level

egypturnash5y ago· 2 in thread

The fediverse is very split, you have some servers that are run by people who post straight up Nazi symbolism on their admin accounts, and you have some servers that have admins who will happily participate in piling on someone for appearing Insufficiently Woke. I block both kinds on my server because I just want a nice quiet place to talk with my friends, and that's a definite segment of the Fediverse too.

Fellshard5y ago

This much is key to observe: this isn't a partisan maneuver by Google, as much as people may want to slot it into that. It smells much more like a control maneuver: a perceived competitor.

egypturnash5y ago

A competitor to what? G+?

1 more reply

kspacewalk25y ago· 1 in thread

The only reason Podcast Addict has been restored (multiple times) is that it's high-profile, and the owner raised enough stink to cause widespread (enough) outrage about this. Otherwise, whether through malice or incompetence, it would be gone forever.

mynameismonkey5y ago

>The only reason Podcast Addict has been restored (multiple times) is that it's high-profile, and the owner raised enough stink to cause widespread (enough) outrage about this. Otherwise, whether through malice or incompetence, it would be gone forever.

This is my concern. These apps are not content hosts, they are akin to Web browsers or RSS readers, but they are small, one-person endeavours that don't have the clout to get Google to notice the difference between the content providers (the individual Mastodon servers) and the ActivityPub client app that these apps represent.

I know one of the devs is thinking to not push the issue as he's worried about his other apps on the same developer account.

The discussion has veered off into censorship issues, but this is a simple 230-ish problem, these apps are not the Mastodon servers that (presumably) some people have had issues with. They are agnostic client readers of the ActivityPub statuses.

There is no way, nor any legal requirement, for a browser like these apps to be held responsible for the million possible bits of content it could consume.

The app is not the service.

matsemann5y ago

It's not a desire to scream about sensorship. It's more about how the rules are arbitrarily enforced. And how every app's fate is in the hand of two big players, so you're sol if they ban you. Even if the ban is a mistake, good luck getting it reversed unless you're going viral.

judge20205y ago

Honestly it's somewhat telling that Automation for app review can get messy fast and that Google should invest in Apple's approach to app review (but I also agree that the poster is extrapolating the app denial into something much more than what it is)

headbansown5y ago

Really? It's not okay to say it's censorship when it is? I'll admit I'm wrong iff the apps are reinstated without having to impose additional restrictions.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse