←back to thread

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

(reclaimthenet.org)
1525 points garyclarke27 | 7 comments | 18 May 20 07:37 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
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 #
jimmySixDOF ◴[18 May 20 10:23 UTC] 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 #
TomMarius ◴[18 May 20 10:41 UTC] No.23220713[source]▶
Maybe this is the effect of continuously putting liability on them? You should account the timeline into your thinking, it's not happening at the same time.
replies(1): >>23221701 #
nyolfen ◴[18 May 20 12:54 UTC] No.23221701[source]▶
it's the effect of trying to avoid regulation by self-regulating. after trump got elected, one of the big media narratives was that it happened because of misinformation ("fake news"); the response has been censorship by platform owners to avoid the charge in the future and any potential federal action
replies(1): >>23221902 #
emteycz ◴[18 May 20 13:15 UTC] No.23221902[source]▶
Why do you think so? How do you know it's not the response to multiple attempts to put liability for content on platform owners like Google and Facebook? How do you know they did not respond strongly because most governments have declared state of crisis, which means more severe punishment, and punishment of things that would be OK otherwise (and of course nobody knows what that actually means, let alone all around the world)?
replies(1): >>23229601 #
nyolfen ◴[18 May 20 23:29 UTC] No.23229601[source]▶
there can be more than one reason, but the censorship began in earnest after trump's election and before covid.[1] this isn't even a controversial position and i'm nowhere near the only person to have remarked upon it.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2018/08/06/636030043/youtube-apple-and-f...

replies(2): >>23230236 #>>23234516 #
1. AnthonyMouse ◴[19 May 20 01:03 UTC] No.23230236{3}[source]▶
It didn't start after Trump's election. It started with the "cancel culture" thing a couple of years before that and pressure on companies to participate in the war on crimethink.

I tend to think that it contributed to Trump's election, because it has the effect of creating massive polarization.

You can't segregate sites by viewpoint and thought filter everything in favor of one side or the other and expect it not to devolve into extremist conflict.

But the people doing this didn't want to admit that they caused the problem to begin with, so instead they double down.

replies(1): >>23231424 #
2. gamblor956 ◴[19 May 20 05:08 UTC] No.23231424[source]▶
The modern polarization of the media began in the 1990s with Newt Gingrich...with help from his patron Rupert Murdoch, an ultra-conservative Australian who owned television stations, tabloids, and newspapers in the US, Australia, and the UK.

Before them, politics was still very cutthroat but not polarized along party lines.

replies(4): >>23232806 #>>23233668 #>>23236299 #>>23236496 #
3. intended ◴[19 May 20 08:59 UTC] No.23232806[source]▶
This- among side the cable news cycle effect were the genesis of today’s virus.

Have to say — Murdoch has been remarkably influential as a massive negative impact on humanity

replies(1): >>23234727 #
4. SuoDuanDao ◴[19 May 20 11:28 UTC] No.23233668[source]▶
True - but something happened in the 2010's when Big Tech started taking sides in a way it hadn't before. I cannot picture Google doing this when it was still Google.
5. IG_Semmelweiss ◴[19 May 20 13:37 UTC] No.23234727{3}[source]▶
I could say the same about disney, their ownership of certain networks and their ability to influence politica to single handledly redefine trademark laws on behalf of the US government

Talk about impact.

Truth is in the eye of the beholder

6. AnthonyMouse ◴[19 May 20 15:58 UTC] No.23236299[source]▶
> The modern polarization of the media began in the 1990s with Newt Gingrich...with help from his patron Rupert Murdoch, an ultra-conservative Australian who owned television stations, tabloids, and newspapers in the US, Australia, and the UK.

That was certainly a thing that happened, but as far as I know Rupert Murdoch never got Gore Vidal blacklisted by book publishers or whatever.

It's one thing to say your piece, something else to stop the other guy saying theirs.

7. jtuente ◴[19 May 20 16:12 UTC] No.23236496[source]▶
It seems very similar to McCarthyism and the anti-communist messages from the late '40s and early '50s like the "loyalty review boards", just with wider media available in the modern world. McCarthyism also adopted similar conspiracy theories concerning vaccinations, mental health care, and fluoridation.