←back to thread

1525 points garyclarke27 | 4 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 #
jimmySixDOF ◴[] No.23220589[source]
You can try Pocket Casts [1] who are my favorite and only

Of course that's assuming that they don't get the same play store treatment from GOOG

It's a little too ironic that Goggle, who has countless times made the argument that they aren't responsible/liable for what their users do on a service ("honestly senator its just a platform we provide"), and then here they are the ones calling for some downstream accountability. Not that I agree at all with the logic- you may as well say that a bank is responsible(liable) for the use of any money they lend out ;} -- but its the hypocrisy that stinks to high heaven here!

[1] https://www.pocketcasts.com/

replies(4): >>23220713 #>>23220814 #>>23221065 #>>23227208 #
101404 ◴[] No.23221065[source]
Or you can just not drop an app that just became the victim of corporate censorship.
replies(1): >>23221184 #
1. codeddesign ◴[] No.23221184[source]
Why is this topic not coming up more often? There is heavy censorship in play here at the same levels as China and Russia.
replies(2): >>23221488 #>>23230063 #
2. dvtrn ◴[] No.23230063[source]
Because many times the conversation frustratingly becomes a turtles all the way down slugfest between the loud “it’s their platform and they can do what they want” crowd vs. the equally loud “free speech is an absolute” officiated by the “censorship only matters if the government does it” crowd.

Call this an oversimplification of a nuanced issue if you want. Because it is. I’m not shying from it. Just doesn’t seem all that much different from the amount of nuance that goes into and subsequently comes out of the kinds of flame wars commonly immolating this topic anyway.

This is just opinion though, I wouldn’t encourage anyone try to unearth anything objective out of it beyond what pleasantry is warranted for such idle (and wholly inane) thought.

3. jagannathtech ◴[] No.23230526{4}[source]
perfect... govt unable to enforce rule of law over violence is just an indirect way of disincentivising free speech.
4. lawtalkinghuman ◴[] No.23233382{4}[source]
There is literally no legally significant difference between refusing to host a social media account on your website and murdering people.