←back to thread

1525 points garyclarke27 | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ipsum2 ◴[] No.23219562[source]
My favorite (and only) podcasting app. I hope someone who works at Google reads this and flag it internally.

This quote really sums up how ridiculous Google is being:

> What Google is asking of Podcast Addict would be comparable to Google asking a web browser app to remove references to all the websites and social media posts that reference the coronavirus unless the reference comes from an official government entity or public health organization.

replies(9): >>23219675 #>>23220287 #>>23220589 #>>23220888 #>>23221059 #>>23221381 #>>23222497 #>>23232236 #>>23232657 #
Crosseye_Jack ◴[] No.23219675[source]
> asking a web browser app to remove references to all the websites and social media posts

Except usually a web browser doesn't include a index of sites, You go to a another site (Google/Bing) for that. If a browser does include "recommended sites" the landing pages of those sites best keep to Google's and Apples rules. For an extreme example, If Firefox was promoting PornHub on the new tab page we could understand why Google or Apple would tell them to cut it out, but it doesn't stop you from visiting the site.

I'm not saying I agree with what Google have done here (IMO they should re-instate Podcast Addict), Just that I can see why Google could think "recommended podcasts" and podcast indexes come under the "included content" of an app.

EDIT: As others has said here, It's more like Google banning YouTube because it contains video's about covid 19 which don't come from "approved sources" (Though Google did demonetize people for talking about it and de-rank non "approved sources")

replies(8): >>23219715 #>>23219757 #>>23219776 #>>23219788 #>>23220019 #>>23221092 #>>23222194 #>>23232276 #
bnjms ◴[] No.23219776[source]
So it’s like Google banning a Bing, DDG, or (...) Google search app app for Indexing sites that do not follow approved guidelines.

OP’s point stands without modification.

replies(1): >>23219827 #
1. Crosseye_Jack ◴[] No.23219827{3}[source]
But a search app isn't directly a web browser (Though browsing many be a secondary function). But many adult content search apps have been removed from app stores.
replies(2): >>23219872 #>>23231026 #
2. huffmsa ◴[] No.23219872[source]
With the Advent of the omnibar, they are necessarily search engines
replies(1): >>23219944 #
3. Crosseye_Jack ◴[] No.23219944[source]
An argument there could be that the user still gets to choose which search engine the omnibar gets sent to.

I don't agree with Googles decision (I strongly disagree with it). Just stating that under the letter of the law (of the app stores policies) I can see why app stores feel they have the power to govern the search results in such apps (iirc web browsers have a exception to the clause - /me goes to double check Googles policy on web browsers - brb)

EDIT: With a quick 5 min glance at the policy it looks like Google have been extremely heavy handed because "Any apps referencing COVID-19, or related terms, in any form in their metadata will only be approved for distribution in the Play Store if they are published, commissioned or authorised by one of these entities." But podcasts in their search couldn't be in their play store meta data. (Still digging)

replies(1): >>23220337 #
4. cft ◴[] No.23220337{3}[source]
https://twitter.com/PodcastAddict/status/1261805845735604224...

Nothing in the metadata. Pure evil.

5. bnjms ◴[] No.23231026[source]
The bar you set was "Except usually a web browser doesn't include a index of sites". And I see a direct parallel with Google holding a pod cast app responsible for the podcasts content as there is to Google which keeps a more complete index of the content of web sites than the podcast app does of podcast contents.