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."
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.
So Google won't tolerate intolerance, but they sure will tolerate hypocrisy. Got it.
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_.
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.
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?
And by banning certain sites, Google abandons any claim to be a common carrier and can now be held liable for ANY infringing sites.
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.
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.