Being suspended for user generated content has been a rite of passage for third party reddit clients. It's crazy how this happens again, again and again.

https://old.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/96l0at/sync_for_re...

https://old.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/6dwv1f/boost_for_r...

https://old.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/5fqrr8/now_for_red...

There is a significant difference there though: reddit is still a single, central entity. Matrix, XMPP, email, (and activitypub based systems, ssbc, and anything federated) could be connecting to one's own server. It could be a machine in my basement.

I don't see the difference. "Sync for reddit" a custom client for reddit. It was suspended for "hate speech". Then why isn't the official reddit app not suspended?

> I don't see the difference.

?

1. I install synapse (a matrix server) on my own machine. I install Element on my own phone. I connect one to another, and via the server to other servers.

2. I install a client that connects to reddit. Same reddit as everyone else. Same reddit as the reddit website.

There is a rather significant difference, isn't there?

EDIT addressing the 'hate speech' part, you are correct. If one reddit client is banned, all should be banned. But that is not true for communication apps, like Element.

> This jeopardizes every email, xmpp, matrix, etc; basically any 3rd party application.

Except of course Google's own applications. Gmail, Hangouts/Meet/whatever-it-currently-is, Chrome.

Luckily it's not possible to display illegal content with Google's own apps /s

I remember when my nephew got groomed on Google Plus, I was way to naive to think that this would not be occurring in Google's walled gardens. But in there, it turned out to be quasi-public.

>Luckily it's not possible to display illegal content with Google's own apps /s

Perhaps one day they will make this argument to justify having to spy on everything you do with their software.

> my nephew got groomed on Google Plus

That is genuinely horrifying and I'm so sorry for him and your family.

Don’t worry. Google will kill it’s own chat apps. Sad but true.

The app in question wasn't suspended for illegal content, it was suspended for profanity.

That's ridiculous on it's own. I mean... got out on the street and listen to how people talk.

I pointed this out not long ago. When will it comes to Email? How is mailing list any different?

And what about Chrome or Web Browser? Or they going to have built in Filter for website? Although without the reach of Google Search Engine having a filter or not makes no difference anyway.

But it is great they are doing it, the more the better. People were extremely supportive on HN not long ago about banning speeches they dont like on Internet. Hopefully they finally learned something here. They opened the Pandora Box and there is nothing anyone could do until the Pendulum swing to its limit before swinging back.

History repeats over and over again: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3597025

For all the chaos, the Internet continues to be surprisingly consistent with one set of rules for BigTech and friends and another set of rules for the rest.

It’s largely based on who has more lawyers. Google would never suspend Twitter because they would be instantly sued... like within 24 hours... and by a top tier law firm.

Update: from what I read, the reasoning can probably only effects systems where history is stored - slack, matrix, to name two. IRC most probably not, XMPP only if configured. Email: unlikely, it's a very different system.

All web browsers that are not Chrome, beware. You're next.

Those might be the exceptions, at least for now. Ever since Firefox's crusade against IE the majority of people seem to still know there are different ~programs~ apps to access the internet with. As long as Chrome is not the default in the overwhelming amount of the operating systems, this might even stay like this, which is why I'm extremely unhappy that Android ships with Chrome these days and not with a thin gui on top of the system webview, like it used to.

EDIT: this ties in to the conversation I had on different platform recently, that it's getting arduous to make people understand that an app is not necessarily the same as the system behind it. Choosing an email client used to be a thing (Thunderbird, The Bat!, Outlook Express, mutt, etc; to name some across contrasting needs) not even too long ago. I despise that we came to a world where even the tech moderation fails to understand an app != protocol.

> As long as Chrome is not the default in the overwhelming amount of the operating systems, this might even stay like this, which is why I'm extremely unhappy that Android ships with Chrome these days and not with a thin gui on top of the system webview, like it used to.

That is also why I was rather sad when Microsoft announced that they won't develop their own browser engines any more. I disliked IE as much as anybody else, but what I did like was the competition. With Edge switching to Blink, essentially becoming yet another partially-degooged Chrome, part of that competition is gone.

> With Edge switching to Blink, essentially becoming yet another partially-degooged Chrome

Now it sends half of your data to Google and the other half to Microsoft. That's an improvement, they decentralized spyware.

Its 75% each way. And they will for many years work to reduce spying by lowering this percentage, to 50% in the asymptotic case.

I would posit that Google has a vested interest in blurring the lines between apps and the protocols that drive them

I wonder why this hasn't been escalated to an anti-trust case yet.

They don't bust trusts anymore, but FAANG sure is determined to bust all our trust in them.

A little polemical, but there's some truth here. We've become so fixated on left-right as the only dimension that whenever you advocate for something clearly in the centrist-ish public interest, all anyone wants to know is which side you're on so that they can reduce you to a caricature.

Which prompts the question, who is responsible for all this vitriol? What people or corporations are driving us further and further into these two filter bubbles?

Oh no.

It used to be that if you even uttered the words "freedom of speech" here you'd be instantly downvoted and jumped on by five people saying that censorship is only when it's done by the government. Some people still double down on supporting the censorship, but at least no one even mentions that free market argument anymore.

Used to be? -6 and counting. Should get flagged any minute now. Can't have people speaking untruths ya know?

edit That didn't take long.

Let me get this straight - you're saying "true libertarians" are people who decide to stop caring about advancing libertarian causes because someone else exercised their right of free speech, and now cheer for the loss of liberty of people they don't like?

No, I'm saying true libertarians have been getting ostracised by polite society for years now.

I'm a massively left leaning libertarian, if it weren't for its consistently proven failures in practice I would be a commy.

But here I am, over the years of commenting online I've been labeled a trump supporter, a Republican, alt right, white, male privileged, white privileged, racist, pseudo intellectual, biggoted, transphobic, and a Nazi.

Aren't libertarians all about the absolute sanctity of private property over all other concerns?

How is a pro-business ideology remotely justifying government intervention in the practice and moderation decisions of a private company? Wouldn't the rectification involve the government specifically dictating their business behaviour?

Wikipedia:

Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association. Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power, but some of them diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems.

If you want to get specific on the economic front I diverge a bit and fall somewhere along the mutualism line of things where I'm more interested in a pragmatic free market socialism. Basically just do what you feel like but don't be a prick about it, and yes, we'll organise some free healthcare and education.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

I'm not seeing a meaningful objection to Google doing what it wants with moderation of its own platform though.

"Do what you want" in the free market is exactly this behavior.

It's own platform?

They're monopolies. They are the market.

There is nothing free about a moderated market.

Robin hood investors disliked a move by management and voted with their feet to place one star reviews.

Google removed them all.

You can but ma private companies if you want but you're only pointing out how monopolistic these platforms are. Good luck with antitrust Google. You gonna get fucked over a barrel. People are waking up.

Google is not a monopoly in the App Store market, but even if it were - how are you going to stop it? Google's property is it's property - it is entitled to do as it pleases. At what point in libertarian ideology is the government supposed to step in? And when it does: and do what? (while still being plausibly a libertarian movement).

> Aren't libertarians all about the absolute sanctity of private property over all other concerns?

They divide themselves on left-libertarians and right-libertarians. What you're thinking about is right-libertarians, so anarcho-capitalists, minarchists etc.

There needs to be a term for otherwise libertarian-minded people, who also understand that the platform should revolve around correcting the power imbalances between large wealthy organizations and individuals, whether those large organizations are governments or corporations. I don't see why we can't restrict the ultra-rich billionaires while still protecting the small-to-medium rich who actually did bust their ass to gain their fortunes.