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."
Good on ya, Google
Considering that Whatsapp and Telegram are both on the Play Store, who is lying, Whatapp/Telegram developers or Google?
They can explain all they want, but the Google that claimed "A free and open world depends on a free and open Internet." cannot without contradiction ban an app from its store for the crime of _not censoring its users sufficiently_.
Wait, I'm confused. Banning Nazi's is bad?? How did that happen?
By the same metric, the built in browser on mobile platforms should be banned as it allows access to such content.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
As long as it's hate directed towards conservatives, twitter is perfectly ok with it. Death threats, rape threats, misogyny, racism, bigotry, and so on is perfectly ok as long as it's against the "right people."
Twitter was running #AssainateTrump same day Google pulled gab. And Gab is not the dark web google pretends it is. Gab bans child porn, doxing, criminal activity,
Saying gab has "sufficient level of moderation" isn't fooling anyone, it's some of the people using Gab Google doesn't like. But those people are everywhere.
Twitter hosts ISIS and other offensive speech and that's allowed in its TOS.
Facebook has kill Isreali groups, kill Republican groups, kill police groups.
Cloudflare protecting over 40 ISIS accounts according to Anonymous.
Google youtube pushing violent TYT on its trending page and specifically demonizing FCC approved content like Louder with Crowder and restricting PragerU (and many other non-left groups)
Silicon Valley pretending one groups offensive speech is acceptable and other isn't is hypocritical. This is political.
Same goes with not calling out ALT-LEFT violence. This is an ideology war, left vs right. Silicon Valley is just picking its side.
How brave of you to label an entire platform as Nazis. Really adds weight to your babble about moral and ethical obligations
These kids have spent too much time in their bedrooms fake shooting people to understand the moral and ethical obligation to destroy Nazism and all of its sympathizers.
I will defend to the death your right to free speech, unless I don't like you. Then I'll shoot you my own damn self and say good riddance to bad ideas.
Wait, I'm confused. Banning Nazi's is bad??
Yes, banning Nazis is bad. Everyone should have the right to express themselves. The First Amendment does not say "Congress shall make no law respecting abridging the freedom of speech unless you are a Nazi". In addition to the principle of freedom of expression, there is also the practical argument: Sunlight is a good disinfectant. It is better for extremism to be discussed and confronted openly rather than festering in the shadows.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." --H. L. Mencken
If you oppose what the Nazis stand for, then you should support their right to speak.
It became bad when I started to classify everyone who does not adhere to my ideology and my moral values as a Nazi. Oh, and since I'm pretty sure you will not adhere to my ideology and my moral values, it means you are a Nazi, and therefore you should not be allowed to speak. We live in a very sad world when people like you can express their opinions.
Seriously, when did people forget that we must allow everyone to speak, including Marxists and Nazis, in order to explain to them why they are wrong (or to realize why we are wrong)? When did people forget that if people can't speak, their only solution will be to use violence?
Speech that everybody agrees with doesn't need defending. The test of whether we have free speech or not is the tolerance of speech you don't agree with. The answer to hate speech has always been more free speech. Drown them out.
Whether it's "accurate and true" makes no difference. Who determines if it is or not? You? Me? The government? Exactly who? See, there's the flaw in your idea.
You must be one of those 15 - 30 year old know-it-alls who has no real education. Read any books lately?
This is a great example of what will happen when Republicans repeal Net Neutrality and now MSNBC owner Comcast doesn't feel comfortable letting you access your favorite alt-right website.
Enjoy!
And by banning certain sites, Google abandons any claim to be a common carrier and can now be held liable for ANY infringing sites.
OK, rather burn a mod point and not be able to comment, I'll comment. You are falling into the classic trap of "purity". By your measure, child porn - to use another extreme example - would be allowed. Likewise, ISIS beheading and recruiting videos... In the same way that I have the freedom to travel within America (leaving aside the 100-mile Customs area) at will, there are limits on routes, maximum speeds, seat-belt requirements, etc. to which I must adhere. According to your logic, any of those limits are "OH NO! My FREEDOM is GONE!!". Very stupid, mate.
Several. The good one is Clover, which was punted from the play store for refusing to block /pol/, the politically incorrect (read: alt right and leftist tired of the alt-left) board. So people use the alternate f-droid "store" to install it. Still annoying.
Wrong. There is no "hate speech" provision in the 1st amendment. To suggest otherwise shows:
1. A complete lack of understanding of American ideals.
2. A disgusting, horrifying level of illiberal authoritarianism, which makes me think you're some kind of arch Neo-Con on par with George Bush Jr or Hillary Clinton.
Like it or not, the most vile among us have the right to speak and assemble in public. This does not include having some hipster douchebags cosplaying as ISIS attacking them.
Now, you can make some argument about Google, Cloudfire, etc being private companies, but we're approaching the point where a handful of companies' decisions can have massive effects on citizen's free speech, which brings forth the idea that maybe, just maybe, the Government isn't allowed outsource censorship and oppression to corporations to do it for them -- in other words, that the 1st amendment prevents Google et all from discriminating like this.
Gab.ai is not "Nazis." Grow up.
Gab is an alternative to Twitter, but since the Alt-Left / Tech-Left has control of Twitter's moderation team, they don't want people leaving, so their allies over at Google are harassing Gab.ai as much as they can.
Being a communist is every bit as bad as being a neo-nazi.
Worse, actually, given how many people Marxism has killed and how much suffering they have caused. Hitler has nothing on Marx, Stalin, or Lenin. At least Nazis don't try to indoctrinate kids and preach that "it wasn't real nazism."
The hammer and sickle should be considered every bit as offensive as the swastika, and for the same reason.
Inaccurate and untrue speech is still protected by the First Amendment.
No, not in all cases. Yell fire in a crowded theatre or slander someone and you are not protected. Is this really news to you?
Uh, it's been known for *years* that the "fire in a crowded theater" thing is BS.
https://www.popehat.com/2012/0...