←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: 0.434s | 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[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[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. vageli ◴[18 May 20 14:10 UTC] No.23222515[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"

How does their own browser not run afoul of this policy?

replies(2): >>23223577 #>>23224296 #
2. Spivak ◴[18 May 20 15:29 UTC] No.23223577[source]▶
Because policies are written and interpreted by humans that have the common sense to understand that there is no connection between the browser app and the content it displays.

This entire thread is a discussion about Google's automatic tool flagging a podcast browser erroneously. If Google's response was to uphold the suspension then there would be an actual story, but they won't, and so it isn't.

3. fauigerzigerk ◴[18 May 20 16:11 UTC] No.23224296[source]▶
Podcast Addict builds an index of podcasts that it makes available to users whereas Chrome does not influence in any way what content users may want to view.

But your question is of course very apt when it comes to the Google Search app or Google's own podcast app.

There used to be this idea (a good idea in my view) that building a search index is a neutral activity that does not come with any editorial responsibility for the content.

Google used to fight for that idea but unfortunately lawmakers (and I think the majority of the population) have very firmly taken the opposite view.

I think that's what's ultimately at the core of this defensive "when in doubt, ban it!" attitude that was built into automatic content filtering tools and hammered into the heads of reviewers.

There are still gaps - the most glaring one being Google Search - but I think Google has largely given up that struggle in favour of avoiding billions in fines