I'm Curious
Does Google have to accept every app submitted to the Play Store?
A social network that fancies itself a "free speech" competitor to Twitter is suing Google after its app was removed from the Play Store. Gab – a recently launched social network that says it is "focused on free speech that would provide a platform for conservatives in the West and dissidents globally" and has become a favored …
This post has been deleted by its author
@ James: But they are also a corporation with global reach and a de facto monopoly on a major communication platform. They are booting Gab not because it isn't good software, they just don't like some of the philosophical positions of some of those who post on it. What Google is attempting to do is silence legitimate dissent. It's a trans-nationalist socialist tactic to use gov'ts and corporations to establish censorship, in this case censorship by the trans-nationalist socialist alt+Left.
This is not to endorse opinions posted on Gab, because many I would vehemently disagree with. Nevertheless, the folks who hold those opinions have the right to express them on a particular platform.
@ James: It's a trans-nationalist socialist corporation that works closely with governments - including enabling censorship and participating in unwarranted surveillance. It's trans-national - obviously - but it is also socialist in that it works in harmony with government censorship, e.g.:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/04/technology/google-censorship/index.html
The company could show some spine and refuse - and take its licks - but it doesn't. It pretty much censors anything it is ask to. Moreover, even at home base, if an employ speaks her or his mind on a subject such as, say, feminism, unless that opinion is within the sphere of the alt+left's, they are canned faster than tuna unloaded at the docks.
Google should stand up to the evil socialist censors in the government (yeah, right) and lose money and have to go to court and generally create a lot of trouble for itself for _that bunch_?! And especially when the idiots in question can post their venom by other means, including setting up website, sideloading their apps, setting up mailing lists, setting up newsgroups... You want _Google_ to stand and fight for _them_?! Really? When there is no business advantage to it, and lots of bad PR?
Good luck with that.
Well, duh, yes. People should be standing up against these dictators, oppressors and tyrants wherever and whenever they deal with them, e.g.:
We were sold a bill of goods about trading with mainland China, about how it would open them up and spread rights. Instead the regime there used the technology to screw the screws tighter. Had western companies (Google and Cisco et a.l) sincerely and robustly refused to support oppression rather than greedily helping it along, we might be in a very different world today.
Well, Gizmodo calls them "Twitter for Trolls," for what that's worth. It sounds like a bunch of hateful racist snowflakes who've been found too foul for Twitter are taking their butthurt to court. Without an app, what are they to do? If only there were some kind of global network, a World Wide Web if you will, where they could allow racists to voice their opinions!
Ha! Well, speak for yourself, Shifty!
Seriously, though - Gab is an excellent platform. It's better than Twitter, if only because it's ad-free and has a free speech ethos, and it really deserves to succeed.
If only a) more people would use it; and b) it would stop being smeared with accusations of being a haven for neo-Nazis and nutters.
in preference to the alternatives?
I have no axe to grind here as I'm not on any Social Media site because I think that they are a total waste of my time and as my time left on this planet is limited I'd rather do something more productive such as tick off the items on my bucket list.
Ummmm, by some definitions, this place right here qualifies as social media. You're interacting with others in a media-based format.
Of course, given some of the people who hang out here, at times it's more like antisocial media, but I think it still scrapes in under the social media umbrella.
YMMV. HAND. And other social media type acronyms.
Usenet is awful. If they don't like your opinion they are all up in your post's headers trying to figure out your geo-location and identity .. Oh the drama should one dissent .. Anyway .. While on one hand I didn't worry too much. on the other it's just that some people who post on usenet/newsgroups take things too personally, are crazed, and try to do real harm to those with whom they disagree.
There's one particular idiot on USENET who has been trying to track me for at least a decade. (Yes, seriously. He has no life.) Unfortunately for him, that check-the-headers stuff isn't as accurate as he thinks it is, particularly when being used on a moderated newsgroup (hint: look up how moderated groups are set up in USENET) or when someone (me, for instance) is using a proxy. Especially when several other posters are using the same proxy. The idiot in question has accused at least six other posters of being my sock-puppets. Apparently he only paid attention to the headers he liked, and ignored headers indicating things like the newsreader agent or the OS; of the six, three were on Windows (Win XP, Win 10, and Win Server 2008 R2) and two were on Linux (Fedora and Gentoo) while one was on BSD. I was using a Mac. Needless to say, we all had different newsreaders. We had fun laughing at him. We all used the same (free) newsfeed, based in Berlin (yes, that one) and when he said that we'd been forging headers we pointed out that forging headers was a ToS action, so that if he had actual proof of that he should simply contact our newsfeed and report us. Nothing ever happened, but he did shut up about us being sock-puppets.
I found the whole thing to be great fun. I'm pretty sure that he didn't, but that was part of the fun.
if the trolls only voicing their opinions to each other and using Gab as an echo chamber then who would they be trolling? Terrorists, on the other hand, would be bad because they could promote and share like minded ideas but don't they already have main stream social media for that anyway?
Sounds like free speech to me. It's Google's online real estate, so they can do what the fuck they like with it.
Incidentally, I'm finding it very easy to spot when there's a member of the so called alt-wrong in the room. They're the ones trying to set the terms of reference for any conversation ("You can't publish that because you're an IT web site."). Odd for people who claim to defend freedom or expression. The bigoted little shits can go fuck themselves.
"That's great. Now if only they weren't a monopoly. But they are! So different rules apply."
Monopoly my fat hairy arse. You have Apple, Amazon and various app stores outside of the US. You'd also have Microsoft, Nokia and Blackberry, but they were too fucking incompetent to stay in the game. The alt-wrong are welcome to set up their own App Store, but that would involve a little something called work.
The "alt-wrong". Very cocksure for an anonymous coward.
It's this no-platforming, refusal to engage in debate, dismissal of any argument as simply "alt-wrong" that has led to an increase in genuine extremism. The branding of any and all opposition to so-called liberalism as alt-right/fascism is the death of genuine liberty.
Google have a monopoly on Android app distribution. Apple have a monopoly on iOS app distribution. To deny this is to support corporatism.
Isn't telling anyone to "fuck off" hate speech? Then the act of banning an app for permitting free speech (and no other valid reason) is an act of hatred. So Google are haters of free speech.
The principle of freedom of speech is core to American + western values - i.e. defending the right of others to say what they think, even if you don't agree with them. Without freedom of speech you cannot challenge creeping oppression.
Maybe the persons of Russian origin who founded Google are attempting to subvert western freedom in the guise of promoting their own superior (in their opinion) ideals? Freedom must be continually defended every generation, since there is always a new wave of incomers who seek to take it from us.
"It's this no-platforming, refusal to engage in debate, dismissal of any argument as simply "alt-wrong" that has led to an increase in genuine extremism. "
Since when was no-platforming neo Nazis wrong? Giving them a platform never worked. In fact, it didn't exactly end well. If we're going to give neo Nazis a platform, we might as well do the same for ISIS, because they're just the other side of the same coin.
The vast majority of the people labelled alt-right are in no way shape or form neo Nazis. Even if they were, "no platforming" them is a proven way to give them more power, not less. Much better to let them speak, and then mock them using their own words to highlight their idiot wrongness.
"Since when was no-platforming neo Nazis wrong?"
Congratulations, you've made my argument for me. Gab aren't neo Nazis. The majority of people no-platformed by people calling themselves liberal aren't neo Nazis either. To simply call someone who disagrees with you a Nazi is to lose the argument.
We used to have a thing on the internet called Godwin's law, you know.
"Google have a monopoly on Android app distribution. Apple have a monopoly on iOS app distribution. To deny this is to support corporatism."
Google has no such monopoly. Hardly surprising to see that asserted though, since the alt-wrong would struggle to win any argument by being remotely truthful. You could argue Apple do, but I'd expect the courts to rule in favour of the platform owner anyway given the overall diversity of app stores and platforms.
You're free to load non "play store" apps onto an android phone. Removing it from the play store is not the same as a ban (like it effectively is on Apple's platform).
Gab know though that most of their users/potential users will do nothing more than search the play store. Sideloading involves finding the thing on the internet, and changing one security setting on your phone. Compared to search play store, install, done.
It is pretty bad BTW, GABs entire 'selling' point is that you won't be kicked off for what you say. They as a company presence actively push this on twitter. It has indeed attracted those who couldn't play by the rules on other networks. Not just the right wing, (they are a big presence there though) but the morons, trolls and those who think abuse of various types is hilarious.
'You're free to load non "play store" apps onto an android phone.'
Sure you are. You are also free to write your own operating system from scratch and run that on an android phone. You are free to never turn it on or run over it with a truck. But you won't. I do, but *you* won't.
"Monopoly my fat hairy arse. You have Apple, Amazon and various app stores outside of the US. You'd also have Microsoft, Nokia and Blackberry, but they were too fucking incompetent to stay in the game. The alt-wrong are welcome to set up their own App Store, but that would involve a little something called work."
That's great. Now if only you knew the legal definition of monopoly, you'd be home free. Instead, you just stand their looking like an argumentative fool.
"That's great. Now if only you knew the legal definition of monopoly, you'd be home free. Instead, you just stand their looking like an argumentative fool."
Yes, I looked up the legal definition and concluded you're wrong. Google don't actually prevent users from loading Gob onto their Android phones, so there's no abuse taking place. They might have more luck against Apple's model, which is strictly an "App Store only and only our App Store" approach but I'd exepect the courts to ultimately grant primacy to the platform owners.
Google is basically a monopoly at this point and should be regulated like a public utility. And yes, currently as a private company, they have the right in a purely legalistic sense to tell people to fuck off, however if you do not see the wider problem of companies (especially near-monopolies) censoring things they don't like, you have an extremely narrow vision and may find yourself without any right to speak.
One last thing, you are misusing the word "bigot". Bigotry is not an essential characteristic of racists, it is simply the bull-headed attitude of a person who is obstinately committed to his own ideas and unwilling to listen to others (strangely, an attitude one notices a lot from people overusing and misusing the word "bigot").
I don't see why any social network needs a specific app, they rarely offer any improvement from using their website from my phones browser. Then there are some annoying apps which could work fine from a browser but won't let you use outside of their service outside of the app and therefore don't get installed on my phone.
They could side load their app from a website. They could simply use a website, moderated or not. They could run a mialing list, again moderated or not. They could set up a newsgroup on USENET, again moderated or not. They could have their users not violate Google’s Ts&Cs. Launching a lawsuit is not likely to achieve nearly as positive a result as any of the above alternatives.
... several times since the '80's. I've seen this come and go over the last three decades and in every case, i.e. court case, it's been determined that the right of free speech does not apply in a corporate provided service. You comply with their terms and conditions (EULA, whatevah you want to call them) or you don't get to play there. Yet another case isn't going to result in a different result, even if you can tag that corporation as a monopoly, which it isn't in this case as there are other providers of applications and other platforms.
Good luck to Marc on this one. He's good, damned good, on this topic but I see no traction here.
I expect that Android allows side loading (which includes the ability to add a whole other App Store) renders the arguments moot. Google can say "Play is our platform, and we have a reputation to protect, but we're not stopping people from loading this app onto their phones". The plaintiffs may have a better chance with Apple, but the courts are more likely to come down in favour of the platform owner. As far as I'm concerned, it's little different to coming to a party at my place. We have rules. We get to decide who is allowed in, and we may ask a guest engaged in foul, racist, homophobic or anti Semitic language to leave.
Then they should remove twitter. It has the exact same issue of loudmouth trolls and hategroups (like isis) that was used to justify removing gab. If one is against the rules, both are. If one isn't, neither are.
That's the core of gabs case. Google are using their monopoly control of the app market on android to pick winners and losers between otherwise legitimate competitors.
"Then they should remove twitter. It has the exact same issue of loudmouth trolls and hategroups (like isis) that was used to justify removing gab. If one is against the rules, both are. If one isn't, neither are."
See: https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175050
Twitter has a clear policy clear hate speech, rather than being about hate speech. How they police that is another matter. But the policy is in place, and Twitter complies with lawful requests for data on user activities. This likely leaves Twitter well inside the boundarys of Google Play's T&Cs.
@Graham Dawson
Twitter will and do remove users who break the terms. There are a lot of them though, and I imagine policing it is difficult.
Gab themselves say this is their entire purpose, that's not really up for debate. They were created for and exist to provide a platform to those poor people who can't talk/debate without abuse, slurs, racism, threats etc. "free speech" is what they endlessly push. They don't mean free speech [within the laws of the land] they mean "we can say and do as we please, waaah waaah waaah".
So you basically have twitter without even the most blatant wankers removed. Twitter might not do everything it can, but you do see those who go to far disappear forever.
They then show up on Gab where they can continue their ranting and raving but with an additional "the man tried to stop me, I must be important" thing going on.
This post has been deleted by its author
""focused on free speech that would provide a platform for conservatives in the West and dissidents globally" "
Free speech of only a certain type isn't free speech. If they want to start a platform that (for some odd reason) allows one type of speech only for conservatives in "The West" and "dissidents" (whatever they mean by this - expect widely varying interpretations) "globally" then they're free to do so, and allow/disallow whatever they want on it as it's their "club" and they make the rules. Free speech doesn't mean that a supllier or retailer must stock and sell your product or service - they have their own freedom to decide that too.
Anyway, be grateful for your brief moment of free publicity before you fold due to lack of interest.
Maybe you'll then wish you'd allowed in the dissidents in the West and conservatives globally as well, or something like that....... this new right ideology's terminology is impenetrable to all but the most fervent followers.
By calling themselves "conservatives", they're eroding the traditional conservatives' rational ideas: that you should earn your living through work; you should understand why things are as they are, rather than blindly change them; that you should be personally responsible for your actions; that you should be charitable, and that you should actively help to look after the less fortunate in your own community.
[contrast the socialist/liberal position that the state should support those who are not working without question; that many of societies structures are outdated and need to change; that poverty, upbringing and societal deprivation can explain away some crimes; that the state should provide for the less well off, with taxation replacing charity]
The first mistake people make about the "alt-right" is that they're conservatives at all: they're actually radical Libertarians. They don't want to conserve anything: like the radical Left, they want to destroy what's here now (and just like the radical left, they can't come up with anything that wouldn't be at least a thousand times worse that what we've got).
Forget work-ethic and personal responsibility: these dickheads want the whole pie and they want it now; they want to destroy any kind of authority so they can do what they feel like without thought for consequence; and when they screw up, they'll blame "the media/the left/the deep-state/bias/positive discrimination" - basically anyone except their own dumb self. They're the spoilt brats of the 1980s generation that idolised Ayn Rand's philosophy of "I've got mine, so fuck you", but without the benefit their grasping parents had of growing up in modest circumstances, during a period of history where "right on" socially liberal causes were strongly in fashion.
Conservatism is almost the opposite of the "alt-right" in many respects, but in the US, the name "conservative" has been pretty much co-opted by the radical Libertarians, to the point where it's hard to separate them anymore.
(For what it's worth, my own personal politics are left-liberal: socially strongly progressive, but fiscally mildly conservative)
Quote from article "The suit [PDF], filed Thursday in the US District Court of Eastern Pennsylvania, claims that when Google suspended the Gab app from the Play Store, it effectively shut out Gab from any access to Android. This, the suit claims, is because the Play Store has become the only trusted source for Android apps on the market" Unquote.
Trusted? Please tell me Marc, Just how may apps has Google pulled this year when they finally twigged that they were loaded with malware? And only after they had been downloaded umpteen millions of times.
Trusted? Oh puhleeze,
Your lawsuit deserves to fail. Not only because Gob is that desperate for users that it will take any old gobshite regardless of whether their views are offensive or not, but you obviously have no idea of what trust means.
Cheers… Ishy
Trusted? Please tell me Marc, Just how may apps has Google pulled this year ...
We know that, but to the average punter, they are told by Google that "Play Store is the only safe place, use any other store and you are inviting the four horsemen onto your phone" - so the average punter will not consider any other source.
Actually that needs a correction, because the average punter doesn't even know that other sources are possible - if it isn't in Google's store then it doesn't exist. Only well above average punters actually realise there are alternative sources.
On that basis, I'd say that the suit has merit IF they can show that they weren't in violation of any T&Cs.
Analogies to "it's my party ..." etc are not really valid. It's more like one company owning just about every venue in a city/state/country and arbitrarily refusing bookings from an act that competes with one of it's regulars. Even that analogy is a bit weak.
Seems a little like the question, "Do you trust the police?". OMG, some of them are bad, we must abolish the entire concept IMMEDIATELY! Er, no. You work on it, find the problems and work to fix them.
One of the bigger issues is that apps are being allowed to download and execute code that can be changed arbitrarily, allowing payloads to be snuck into apps that are not themselves malicious. So yeah, Google needs to chop that off hard, and maybe look at ways to better vet individual developers who are allowed to do that, at least in terms of being able to nail them to the wall if it's abused.
Also, isn't like 90% of the Android malware in China from third-party stores?
Being an avid "low memory iPhone" user, apps that just do what a website does already are a luxury (ha!) I'm forced to do without.
In an age of responsive javascripted php'd html5'd internets, fast data connections, and powerful telephone browsers, with a semblance of control (firewalling, blocking particular functions, adverts, ability to clear caches, zero memory footprint when offline etc), why would anyone even *want* an app version of a service like this?
A service where freedom of expression, privacy and anonymity are more easily exercised through a browser too.
Gab may as well have a facial ID for login, but even that likely wouldn't ring alarm bells for those users who believe gab is there for its users interests only, while the exact inverse is likely the case!
"Hate speech" has very broad definitions - intentionally so, it seems - so usually means "Right wing". I would have thought Gab have Google bang to rights. I gather that US courts tend to reflect the views of those in power; but on the other hand, the US left has refused to recognise the election of Trump. So it's anybody's guess how this will play out.
That Google is becoming an oppressive monopoly is certainly true; and their cashiering of staff on ideological grounds puts them in a weak position to argue that this was neutral.
We need an internet that is not under the control of a handful of corporations with very strong links to one small segment of the political spectrum.
Just build a, you know, WEB SITE.
Seriously. All these vendors making "apps" for Apple, Android, etc.
Guess what, there is a technology called HTML which is platform independent, and is designed *specifically* for rendering text, images, even animations and videos on a computer screen, be that a desktop computer, a tablet, or a mobile phone. Marvellous what we can do nowadays, isn't it?
Just register m.gab.com and tell Google, and Apple for that matter, to go fuck themselves. Nobody needs to install ANYTHING on the devices. Which means if Google or Apple decide they don't like you, well, fuck them.
It's called the internet.
Most "apps" are nothing but thin wrappers around a browser anyway, with the stock images stored locally on the device.
We have a solution for that, too. It's called a web cache.
Is it me?