nav search
Data Center Software Security Transformation DevOps Business Personal Tech Science Emergent Tech Bootnotes BOFH

back to article
Google sued by Gab over Play Store booting

I'm Curious

Does Google have to accept every app submitted to the Play Store?

12
3

This post has been deleted by its author

Anonymous Coward

'Does Google have to accept every app submitted to the Play Store?'

Google doesn't care as long as they get their piece of the action:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/09/15/malware_outbreak_googles_play_store/

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/23/banking_trojan_on_google_play/

2
3
Silver badge

Re: I'm Curious

No, they don’t. They have free speech, too.

12
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: I'm Curious

The right to free speech isn't without limits, apparently

0
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: I'm Curious

Problem is google has become a utility that is forcing their wrong globablist liberal views on the world.

3
8

Re: I'm Curious

No, but ideally they would have consistently applied guidelines to prevent the perception that they are taking a political stance, which might call into question the objectivity of their search engine, etc.

0
1

Re: I'm Curious

@ 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.

2
3
Silver badge

Re: I'm Curious

Google, the God-king of advertising, is a _socialist_, _leftist_, platform? Really? Can you support that?

4
1

Re: I'm Curious

@ 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.

1
5
Silver badge

Re: I'm Curious

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.

0
1

Re: I'm Curious

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.

0
1
Silver badge
Trollface

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!

35
16
FAIL

Gizmodo can get stuffed. I use Gab, and I'm not a troll, a racist, a snowflake or a conservative.

19
17
Silver badge
Trollface

[citation needed]

18
7

Yes you are. Everyone is a little bit racist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbud8rLejLM

8
6

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.

9
12
Anonymous Coward

Want to tell us why you use Gab?

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.

12
3
Silver badge

Re: Want to tell us why you use Gab?

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.

10
0
Anonymous Coward

Whatever happened to "News Groups". And aren't there such a thing as "Forums", still??

6
0
Anonymous Coward

No one asked your for your value judgment, snowflake.

0
14
Silver badge
Trollface

As one of the surviving parts of Gawker, Gizmodo is a good choice of moral authority to judge other companies by.

5
0
Bronze badge

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?

3
0

Ad Free?

What's their business model, then? Controversy aside, have they got a viable business model?

6
0

same here

1
0

Re: Ad Free?

Sue Google?

5
0

Usenet (Newsgroups)

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.

1
2
Silver badge

Re: Usenet (Newsgroups)

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.

3
0

Re: Ad Free?

They have subscriptions for extra features and verification.

1
0

Google are in big trouble. First Damore and now this.

2
21
Anonymous Coward

NEWSFLASH

NOBODY CARES.

Facebook and Twitter can be used from mobile browsers, I'm sure that the Asshat Network will have a similar interface as well.

20
5
Trollface

Gab?

What's that?

Given that the examples for social networking they used are far from being the predominant players anywhere (even Google has realized that Google+ is just not going to take off), it'll probably be dismissed.

7
3
Anonymous Coward

I recall at the time the CEO(?) of Gab publicly shared emails that indicated Google were seeking some kind of partnership with Gab which was - somewhat snarkily - declined.

The ban followed soon after.

4
11
Anonymous Coward

Well if you say it's true who are we to argue? Your reputation precedes you...

5
0
Anonymous Coward

Please, let's be consistent

Either Google+ is a failed social network, that isn't competing with anything else, or its not failed and it is.. you can't flip flop between the two to suit today's argument...

Me, it's the only social network account I own and actively use.

3
3
Anonymous Coward

So Google told them to fuck off

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.

18
11
Silver badge

Re: So Google told them to fuck off

"Sounds like free speech to me. It's Google's online real estate, so they can do what the fuck they like with it."

That's great. Now if only they weren't a monopoly. But they are! So different rules apply.

9
18
Anonymous Coward

Re: So Google told them to fuck off

"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.

19
11

Re: So Google told them to fuck off

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.

15
8
Bronze badge
Stop

Re: So Google told them to fuck off

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.

4
11
Anonymous Coward

Re: So Google told them to fuck off

"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.

12
8
Silver badge

Re: So Google told them to fuck off

"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.

4
9
Anonymous Coward

Re: So Google told them to fuck off

"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.

11
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: So Google told them to fuck off

"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.

10
4

Re: So Google told them to fuck off

Amazon somehow distribute an app that is not available on the google appstore

2
0
Bronze badge

Re: So Google told them to fuck off

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.

4
0
Silver badge

Re: So Google told them to fuck off

That's great. Now if only they weren't a monopoly. But they are! So different rules apply.

You want it that bad the just do what everyone else does and sideload it.

3
0

Re: So Google told them to fuck off

they are a monopoly and a utility to the poor. androids are a dime a dozen. even people who can't afford a 2nd hand pc end up getting a 2nd hand android. with free wifi everywhere, google has monopolized the minds of the poor.

0
1

Re: So Google told them to fuck off

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.

0
4

Re: So Google told them to fuck off

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").

2
2

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community. Part of Situation Publishing