←back to thread

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

(reclaimthenet.org)
1525 points garyclarke27 | 3 comments | 18 May 20 07:37 UTC | HN request time: 0.622s | source
Show context
heinrichhartman ◴[18 May 20 12:06 UTC] No.23221288[source]▶
This is the result of out-sourcing juristic work to private companies:

If we treat Android, Window, Twitter, Facebook, as public spaces/goods, then private companies should not have a say in what is allowed/not-allowed on their platforms. This is work for the courts and police to decide and enforce.

If we treat those platforms as private. Then we are playing in s/o's backyard. You are totally at their mercy. They have every right to kick you out if they don't like your face. It's their property. You are a guest.

I think we need constituted digital public spaces and platforms with:

- democratic footing (users are in charge)

- public ownership

- division of power (politicians =!= judges =!= police)

- effective policing

In such a system it would be for independent courts to decide which Apps can be distributed and which not. Those courts would be bound to a constitution/body of law, which applies to all parties a like.

Yes, this will be expensive. Yes, you will have to give up some privacy. But you will be a citizen in a society, and not a stranger playing in a backyard.

Maybe the current platforms can be coerced into a system which approximates the above. But I have my doubts. I hope in 200years people will have figured this out, and will look back to this age as the digital dark ages.

replies(17): >>23221309 #>>23221497 #>>23221572 #>>23221741 #>>23221897 #>>23222642 #>>23222646 #>>23222671 #>>23223166 #>>23223727 #>>23224123 #>>23224539 #>>23228931 #>>23229210 #>>23230754 #>>23231344 #>>23236648 #
scarface74 ◴[18 May 20 12:41 UTC] No.23221572[source]▶
You really trust the US court system to be impartial?

Should Apple/Google be forced to carry pornographic apps? White supremacists apps? Apps that invade people’s privacy? Which government should hold this responsibility? Should we have an international committee deciding this?

replies(7): >>23221706 #>>23221717 #>>23221719 #>>23221975 #>>23222099 #>>23225584 #>>23229212 #
chroem- ◴[18 May 20 12:56 UTC] No.23221719[source]▶
Please stop. The more we play this tit-for-tat game of political point scoring, the more it causes the whole system to degenerate. It is corrupting every facet of our society, to the point at which we're no longer able to be objective about life and death matters like the current pandemic.
replies(2): >>23221864 #>>23221948 #
scarface74 ◴[18 May 20 13:19 UTC] No.23221948[source]▶
No I’m just amazed that people are willing to give government more power - the same government who would like nothing more than to have more power to intrude on people’s life.
replies(2): >>23222286 #>>23234746 #
koheripbal ◴[18 May 20 13:51 UTC] No.23222286[source]▶
We're advocating moving this power from massive corporations to the government, because at least the government has some accountability, whereas Google has NONE.
replies(5): >>23222375 #>>23222480 #>>23225787 #>>23226134 #>>23232513 #
1. scarface74 ◴[18 May 20 13:59 UTC] No.23222375[source]▶
Where is this accountability? The Senate by design has two senators regardless of the population of the state, meaning that if you live in a more populous state, you have less voting power than people living in the flyover states. The electoral college also biases the Presidential election to less populous states. Not to mention even in the House of Representatives the ratio between the parties doesn’t match the popular vote because of gerrymandering.

How “accountable” are judges with lifetime appointments?

Google is accountable. If they don’t give people what they want, people don’t give them money directly or indirectly.

replies(1): >>23225845 #
2. freedomben ◴[18 May 20 17:51 UTC] No.23225845[source]▶
In the US, bills (new laws) have to pass both the Senate and the House, and the House is population based. It's a system of checks and balances to ensure that large states and small states don't control each other. In theory, if a particular change is favored by one set and not the other, then it doesn't pass.

In practice it's a little murkier than that, but the way you presented it makes it sound like the system is just stacked to the benefit of the smaller states over the larger, when that is not the case.

replies(1): >>23228918 #
3. scarface74 ◴[18 May 20 22:03 UTC] No.23228918[source]▶
Most regulations that are passed are not by law. They are passed by agencies like the FCC, FTC, FDA etc.

So let’s say this mythical law is passed where you give the government more power over private business. The actual execution of the law is going to be carried out by unelected regulatory agencies where your main recourse is unelected judges.