←back to thread

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

(reclaimthenet.org)
1525 points garyclarke27 | 1 comments | 18 May 20 07:37 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
lord_erasmus ◴[18 May 20 08:37 UTC] No.23219890[source]▶
In most of these stories featuring Google abusing their power to remove apps, it's usually a matter of some automated tool gone wrong and the problem is solved a couple of days later. But this time it's different, they are actually asking developers to censor themselves if they are not affiliated with a gov.
replies(5): >>23220004 #>>23220611 #>>23220957 #>>23220962 #>>23221130 #
gundmc ◴[18 May 20 08:51 UTC] No.23220004[source]▶
What makes you think this is something other than another (awful) high profile case of automation gone wrong?
replies(3): >>23220108 #>>23220199 #>>23221080 #
fauigerzigerk ◴[18 May 20 09:06 UTC] No.23220108[source]▶
Because their action seems consistent with their stated intention of banning all non-official speech on Covid-19?

It could still be reversed if they feel public opinion swings the other way. That wouldn't mean it's automation gone wrong.

replies(2): >>23220303 #>>23221604 #
random32840 ◴[18 May 20 09:38 UTC] No.23220303{3}[source]▶
It may be automated based on frequency of reports, but either way this is unlikely to be company policy. The people who make these decisions are relatively low-level employees following a company guidebook. The guidebook says it has to go? It has to go. The employee doesn't want to get fired.

I doubt it'll stick.

replies(1): >>23220339 #
fauigerzigerk ◴[18 May 20 09:44 UTC] No.23220339{4}[source]▶
>...but either way this is unlikely to be company policy

Perhaps you haven't seen the article because it's behind an Apple News link. There's a screenshot of a message stating company policy as follows:

"Pursuant to Section 8.3 of the Developer Agreement and the Enforcement policy, apps referencing Covid-19, or related terms, in any form will only be approved for distribution on Google Play if they are published, commissioned or authorized by official government entities or public health organizations"

replies(3): >>23220810 #>>23221168 #>>23222515 #
1. random32840 ◴[18 May 20 10:54 UTC] No.23220810{5}[source]▶
That's not what I meant. I mean, it's unlikely that someone high up in the company decided to snipe this app. It's probably a low-level employee following the formal rulebook a little too much to the letter.