This justification still implies Chrome & Firefox also ought be content aware & be censorship machines.

This is grossly unacceptable. Apps need some safe harbor too. Apps can not be responsible for every possible use of the app.

> but a ban on specific implementations that make it easy to join specific communities which encourage hatred and real-world violence

So basically, Google only supports the Fediverse if, like itself, it engages in censorship. The Fediverse exists not to encourage hate speech, but to discourage censorship. Hate speech is the inevitable result of allowing humans to say what like they like. Some people will choose to be nasty. Many people believe the greater good is the free flow of information, and that adults are more than capable of filtering out and avoiding those information sources which make them uncomfortable. Instead, Google wants to treat everybody like children, and be the helicopter parent that swoops in and removes anything objectionable.

>but a ban on specific implementations that make it easy to join specific communities which encourage hatred and real-world violence.

As you state, one can access these specific communities in a number of ways, including Google Chrome. If the community is the issue, go after the community, not an ActivityPub app that can access content from these and other communities.

Should Google also ban RSS reader apps that don't actively block RSS feeds from sites Google doesn't like?

It's a bit silly to emphasize specific communities if this results in a ban of the entire app or network. ~all apps and networks have some communities like that. I don't think this is a complex question at all, this is just bad.

When the cathedral supports real-world violence it's good. When you support real-world violence it's bad. They want you dead, but will settle for your submission.

> Google also controls the browser, and does make it difficult already to access some sites https://developers.google.com/safe-browsing/v4

Safe browsing doesn't include sites for encouraging hatred and violence, etc. Only malware, social engineering, and "harmful"/"unwanted" applications. If they start including those sort of sites in their safe browsing lists, that would make your point here more relevant.

(Of course, some people get hit by safebrowsing unfairly. But I think in most cases, it is because someone compromised their site and used it for a malicious purpose, and then they struggle to get Google to remove it within a timeframe which is reasonable.)

In other words, the developers of these apps need to all run their own Fediverse nodes, _but not federate them to any others_ because otherwise users may be able to access content from nodes that Google doesn't like! Because each dev having to vet every instance out there is the only other option and that's practically impossible.

It concerns me that the company taking down the apps also owns my entire mobile OS from browser to network stack, as well as the DNS resolver, the search engine, and the email client I use.

So Google somehow knows which apps block certain instances, which generally get reputation among other instances & are quickly blocked? That's not believable.

The problem I have isn't that Google bans these apps.

The problem is the fact that Google banning these apps borders on state censorship because of the monopolistic position Google has.

Busting up Google solves the correct problem.

It wasn't that long ago when virtually everyone understood that "hatred" was completely subjective. Trying to remove all communication channels because of the potential for "hatred" means nothing but total silence.

Define "easy to join".

Because if it's "user types in the server URL and tries to log in", blaming the app is ridiculous.

They do it with youtube now as well and demonitize ANYTHING with firearms in it. Doesn’t matter if you’re a hunter or trying to sell people on a new product.

All these disparate media sources that we yearned for back in the cable-only days have finally turned to dogshit.

i think the reason would be that with browsers they don't control the ecosystem enough to get away with it. I actually agree with the ban if your framing is correct (not having looked into it any further), but if they did this in chrome, people would just use another browser to access these sites. you can sideload apps as well of course, but it's much more of a hassle than doing it on PC, where people are used to software distribution not being as centralized

Are you saying the banned apps promote banned sites, or merely don't block banned sites?

There's a huge difference.

Free Speech Extremist. Shitposters Club. No Agenda Social. Lets all love Lain.

There are ton of instances which much of the Fediverse blocks, but if you set up your own server and follow people on those instances, it's not 80% hate speech and racism as others would have you believe. Yes there is some of that, but there's also weebs, and anime and political discussion and weird gaming discussion and videos not posted anywhere else and memes and the great diversity of through we use to have on Reddit before it became a monoculture.

There are also straight up anarchist instances that justify violence and destruction of the state like Rage Love, Anticapitalist Party, and others.

It's a very big space, with new players entering and leaving every month.

Banning apps because they do or don't have block lists greatly misunderstands how the Fediverse works.

> If you happen to be the target of this hatred and violence, and feel it is an existential threat to your livelihood, you might believe that it is a good thing to make it more difficult for those who are engaging in this behavior to enlarge their communities.

I’m indeed being threatened by various hate groups (one of them actually tried, and almost succeeded, to kill an acquaintance), but strangely enough they are never removed by Google or any other big corporations. Worst, each time I voice any slight complain about them, I am the one being censored. Some of those groups are even sometimes getting official support by the GAFAM. This is a really odd and unfair world.

Does Safe Browsing block sites that the user wants to visit?