Most active commenters
  • indymike(3)

←back to thread

Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content

(reclaimthenet.org)
1525 points garyclarke27 | 12 comments | 18 May 20 07:37 UTC | HN request time: 2.526s | source | bottom
Show context
kleiba ◴[18 May 20 08:39 UTC] No.23219907[source]▶
I've never lived in China but this immediately sounds like my (naive) idea of what it must be like: you're only allowed to consume what the government has approved.

I think this is setting a dangerous precedence.

replies(3): >>23219936 #>>23220090 #>>23220341 #
weiming ◴[18 May 20 08:42 UTC] No.23219936[source]▶
Except in this case it's not the government, but private corporations taking some kind of political stance.

Google in particular has been very "active," not to forget also: https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-will-ban-anything-ag... ("video that 'goes against' WHO guidance on the pandemic will be blocked")

replies(3): >>23220012 #>>23220511 #>>23223162 #
1. Tepix ◴[18 May 20 08:52 UTC] No.23220012[source]▶
There is a lot of pressure on the large tech companies to stop spreading misinformation. This is one of their measures.
replies(4): >>23220228 #>>23220331 #>>23220481 #>>23222807 #
2. indymike ◴[18 May 20 09:43 UTC] No.23220331[source]▶
So? That pressure is unconstitutional in the US and should be ignored completely and resisted utterly.
replies(1): >>23220598 #
3. amenod ◴[18 May 20 10:07 UTC] No.23220481[source]▶
So the government-approved information is OK but other information is "misinformation"?

Finding excuses for big tech does not help.

4. 9HZZRfNlpR ◴[18 May 20 10:18 UTC] No.23220557[source]▶
I remember Sergey Brin (Jewish) defending the fact that the second result for a word jew was some nasty conspiracy site that ranked well. Thought he had big balls to defend it especially considering his background.
5. the-real-jap ◴[18 May 20 10:25 UTC] No.23220598[source]▶
How is it unconstitutional? Google/Youtube is not a neutral carrier and can pick what gets broadcasted - just like Fox or CNN.

For the record: as a paying Podcast Addict user, I think this is a shitty action by Google. I just don't see how it is unconstitutional.

NB. I hope something good comes out of this, like more people discovering and using third party app stores, or being able to run apps on android auto even if google hasn't approved such apps (hello TomTom).

replies(1): >>23221270 #
6. drngdds ◴[18 May 20 11:15 UTC] No.23220958[source]▶
Alternate theory: there are intelligent, mature adults who disagree with you
7. kleiba ◴[18 May 20 11:58 UTC] No.23221217[source]▶
Back when most people who worked there were adults

Are you aware of the fact that Google was literally founded by two college kids?

replies(1): >>23232243 #
8. indymike ◴[18 May 20 12:04 UTC] No.23221270{3}[source]▶
The pressure from the government is unconstitutional.
replies(1): >>23229213 #
9. akimball ◴[18 May 20 14:36 UTC] No.23222807[source]▶
If only they would suppress disinformation issued by governmental sources, I wouldn't be so troubled by this.
10. moftz ◴[18 May 20 22:39 UTC] No.23229213{4}[source]▶
The govt asking Google to help keep the spread of misinformation down is totally different than the govt forcing Google to do so and arresting anyone that posts anything contrary to the official position.
replies(1): >>23233100 #
11. thu2111 ◴[19 May 20 07:33 UTC] No.23232243{3}[source]▶
I am! And for better or worse, one of the first things investors insisted on was bringing in Schmidt as "adult supervision".
12. indymike ◴[19 May 20 09:50 UTC] No.23233100{5}[source]▶
Freedom of speech doesn't really care if information is correct or incorrect.