Slashdot Mirror


Google Explains Why It Banned the App For Gab, a Right-Wing Twitter Rival (arstechnica.com)

AmiMoJo shares a report from Ars Technica: When right-wing trolls and outright racists get kicked off of Twitter, they often move to Gab, a right-wing Twitter competitor. Gab was founded by Andrew Torba, who says it's devoted to unfettered free expression online. The site also hosts controversial right-wing figures like Milo Yiannopoulos, Andrew 'weev' Auernheimer and Andrew Anglin, editor of the neo-Nazi site Daily Stormer. On Thursday, Gab said that Google had banned its Android app from the Google Play Store for violating Google's ban on hate speech. The app's main competitor, Twitter, hosts accounts like the American Nazi Party, the Ku Klux Klan, and the virulently anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church, yet the Twitter app is still available on the Google Play store. Apple has long had more restrictive app store policies, and it originally rejected the Gab app for allowing pornographic content to be posted on the service -- despite the fact that hardcore pornography is readily available on Twitter. In an email to Ars, Google explained its decision to remove Gab from the Play Store: "In order to be on the Play Store, social networking apps need to demonstrate a sufficient level of moderation, including for content that encourages violence and advocates hate against groups of people. This is a long-standing rule and clearly stated in our developer policies. Developers always have the opportunity to appeal a suspension and may have their apps reinstated if they've addressed the policy violations and are compliant with our Developer Program Policies."

12 of 530 comments (clear)

  1. Re:So which one is lying then? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Informative

    "In order to be on the Play Store, social networking apps need to demonstrate a sufficient level of moderation, including for content that encourages violence and advocates hate against groups of people"

    Considering that Whatsapp and Telegram are both on the Play Store, who is lying, Whatapp/Telegram developers or Google?

    Trick question, you are lying to yourself because those aren't social networking apps.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  2. Re:what about facebook by Jzanu · · Score: 3, Informative

    Private corporations can do whatever they want in terms of providing or not services to the general public. That is why making disability a protected status resulted in decades of business changes. Political belief is not a protected status.

  3. Re: Because they've abandoned their claimed princi by guruevi · · Score: 4, Informative

    You're a retard for implying that allowing someone else free speech has become illegal.

    With the current ideological environment amongst the 15-30yo demographic and people like you, I'm sure it won't be long before the first amendment is amended.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  4. Re:Privatized public square. The end of freedom by eaglesrule · · Score: 4, Informative

    Corporations own everything now. I'm not against business. Hell. I'm a republican, but if we let them silence speech, no matter how vile when they control the public square, we will by default lose the right to free speech. Popular speech doesn't need protection, it's unpopular speech that needs protecting. Were it not for the first amendment the entire civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s wouldn't have happened.

    An advertiser friendly world is a totalitarian hell hole whereeverything has to work as a billboard for skittles and Budweiser. Fuck that.

    Here, read that again and please tell me how a simple response of 'first amendment only applies to government' isn't disingenuous.

    AC is correct to assert that free speech is threatened when what now serves as the defacto public commons is completely dominated by monopolistic corporations who are now using that position to suppress any speech they dislike, and deplatform anyone they disagree with. Having a internet presence without the cooperation and approval of corporate interests really isn't an option. Actual free speech platforms being suppressed, delisted from search, removed from app stores, and genuinely made unavailable from the public should be cause for anti-trust action.

    "Because Nazis" is the excuse for censorship that's used today, "Because fuck you" is the reason of tomorrow.

  5. Re:Because they've abandoned their claimed princip by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just remember that the laws you create to oppress your enemies today will be used against you tomorrow.

    Just ask this guy.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  6. If you want to protest Intolerance.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Which this clearly is.

    Then just switch your browsers search engine to DuckDuckGo.

    Not hard, although in chrome not super easy (what a surprise!)

    Go to the DuckDuckGo home page.
    Click the "Here" button in step 1.
    Click "OK".
    Click on the settings icon on the upper right.
    Scroll down to the Search section.
    Hover over DuckDuckGo in the "Other Search Engines" section at the bottom.
    Click "Done".

  7. Re:So which one is lying then? by _KiTA_ · · Score: 4, Informative

    Google. Google is lying. You can find child trafficking and child pornography rings on Candid and Twitter -- especially if you understand Arabic.

    This was a political decision based on the Mass Hysteria that people are falling under this week.

  8. Re:Because they've abandoned their claimed princip by _KiTA_ · · Score: 5, Informative

    It happened a couple of days ago, if you've been watching the idiotic alt-right (nazi sympathizers) on YouTube. It started when trump threw them their next meme to bounce off their echo chamber walls: "alt-left".

    Yes, and now opposing right wing extremists, nazis, and white supremacists is considered to be an "alternate" viewpoint.

    Meet Eric Clanton, an Antifa -- Alt Left -- icon.

    He's a professor at Berkeley. He teaches ETHICS.

    He tried to murder 7 people with a Bike lock during the Berkley riots. Here's a video of one of his attacks:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Note that there are two female Alt-Left domestic terrorists that provide a distraction and point his victim out to Eric. Note that the other ISIS cosplaying losers protect Eric by opening a hole in the wall so he can attack and then preventing anyone from restraining Eric for the police.

    Eric's reasoning? The students wanted to see a Gay Jewish Immigrant speak about the dangers of Islam and a Conservative woman talk about how great America is, and he felt that they shouldn't be allowed to do that.

    Fortunately, thanks to 4chan tracking him down, he's looking at a long, LONG time in jail: http://www.berkeleyside.com/20...

    There's an Alt Left, they're way worse than the Alt Right, and the more the "enlightened left" pretends they don't exist the more people like Clanton out there feel emboldened to try to murder people in the streets.

  9. Re:No need to tolerate intolerance by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Informative

    The existence of those accounts isn't indicative of selective enforcement - Twitter's moderation operates at the content level, not the account level. So you can set up an account for a white supremacist organization but the moment you post a call for genocide, you'll get banned. Do the same on Gab, and nothing will happen, other than an overwhelming response of support from other users.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  10. Re:So which one is lying then? by _KiTA_ · · Score: 4, Informative

    Google allows plenty of hate speech on their site. Just take a look over at Gazi "Black Hitler" Kodzo and his related videos. Hate speech is perfectly OK by Google and the left, as long as you target the right people with your hate.

  11. Re: Because they've abandoned their claimed princ by Spamalope · · Score: 3, Informative

    In both cases the overwhelming majority of the claimed casualties were not killed by gubmint bullets, but by the results of economic policies.

    No! Mao and Stalin's apologists certainly tried to claim that. The truth about the Holodomor got out though. Stripping the entire Ukraine of food at gunpoint to start millions is not economic policy, it's mass murder! You have noticed there is conflict between Russia and the Ukraine now, right? You seem like a Holodomor denier, don't you?

    How about Mao's great leap forward? How many millions dead? When he invited public criticism and then exterminated any who spoke up? 50 million dead? What's your answer? everyone dies eventually Ah yes, compassion. And against hate speech. How... conveniently defined too.

    Stalin's gulag prison death camps? The Gulag Archipelago slightly more convincing than hand waving you know.

    Shrill hysteria like "Ideology X killed N people! Reeeeeee!" does nothing to advance our understanding of politics or economy.

    You are a denier. I bet you're a special kind, that believes in the Nazi holocaust but not Mao's or any of Stalin's. 'Bolshevik labeled authoritarianism is good' does seem to be trendy.

  12. Re: Because they've abandoned their claimed prin by Defakto · · Score: 3, Informative

    That fight has already hit the supreme court. Certain things are illegal when it comes to free speech. Inciting violence is one of them. Free speech doesn't mean I have to listen. Free speech also doesn't mean free from consequences. The only way to effectively address speech we don't like is to allow it to exist in a society that allows open discord on the subject. As soon as you make it illegal you create the need to keep it in private which only strengthens it. If you aren't exposed to contradictions to your belief you cannot change your belief. Surround yourself with the same view, creates a stronger reality of that view.