←back to thread

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

(reclaimthenet.org)
1525 points garyclarke27 | 5 comments | 18 May 20 07:37 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ipsum2 ◴[18 May 20 07:53 UTC] 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 ◴[18 May 20 08:08 UTC] 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 #
nisa ◴[18 May 20 08:53 UTC] No.23220019[source]▶
YouTube constantly recommends me COVID-19 conspiracy videos since I dared to watch one that was popular here in Germany. Basically on every video I watch I have now german conspiracy videos as recommendations. I did neither like the video or did I subscribe the channel.

It's beyond fucked up what Google is doing.

replies(7): >>23220550 #>>23220619 #>>23220697 #>>23221079 #>>23221103 #>>23221382 #>>23221940 #
perf1 ◴[18 May 20 10:39 UTC] No.23220697[source]▶
My feeling is they pushing the extra crazy ones though. Watching a clearly not well Person argue crazy theories isn't very convincing to healthy people anyway.

On the other Hand people like Dr. Erickson get censored, because they simply dare to question the lock down and argue that there is no evidence supporting it's effectiveness in saving lives.

replies(2): >>23221458 #>>23221867 #
1. mantap ◴[18 May 20 12:27 UTC] No.23221458{3}[source]▶
It might have been correct to say there's no evidence in March (which is not a reason to not do something, we would still be in the Stone Age if every action we took required evidence.). There's plenty of evidence now as we have data for both going into and coming out of lockdown.
replies(1): >>23222044 #
2. SpicyLemonZest ◴[18 May 20 13:29 UTC] No.23222044[source]▶
There's plenty of weird, contradictory evidence. Many places have come out of lockdown early, been told they're facing certain doom ("Georgia's Experiment in Human Sacrifice" [1]), and then been quietly forgotten when the predicted consequences don't come. It's hard to believe that lockdowns don't do anything at all, but I don't think anyone can honestly say we have definitive proof they were necessary.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/why-georg...

replies(2): >>23222696 #>>23231158 #
3. akimball ◴[18 May 20 14:28 UTC] No.23222696[source]▶
I can. R0~5.7 has dropped below 1.0 in many mask-averse stay-at-home regions, which I consider compelling evidence of efficacy in an adverse environment, under common-sense priors informed by the medical literature.
replies(1): >>23222738 #
4. SpicyLemonZest ◴[18 May 20 14:30 UTC] No.23222738{3}[source]▶
"This number is below 1.0" is not, by itself, an argument that some particular social policy was necessary or effective. An argument that lockdowns were necessary would at a minimum need to address the questions of "would a less strict policy have sufficed" and "will the long-term outcome after lockdowns end be different".
5. etherealmachine ◴[19 May 20 03:59 UTC] No.23231158[source]▶
Georgia has 164 deaths per million residents, versus 82 in South Carolina next door and 87 in California. Are you sure you still want to call that a bad prediction?