[HN Gopher] Google Play Store Bans Polyamory Dating App
___________________________________________________________________
Google Play Store Bans Polyamory Dating App
Author : pcthrowaway
Score : 36 points
Date : 2021-03-16 18:02 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.vice.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.vice.com)
| alfalfasprout wrote:
| This is the dangerous flip side to having two players be the
| gatekeepers as to what can and cannot be an app (yes, I'm aware
| on android apps can be installed outside google play
| technically... but the audience is tiny).
|
| With Parler, for example, I remember reading tons of posts in
| support of taking the app down. But that same process can be
| easily used to silence apps like these.
| jasonvorhe wrote:
| This has nothing to do with Parler. Google has been auto-
| banning apps based on stupid blacklists and ML magic for years
| because they don't have a human review process (or if they do,
| it doesn't do good work). A couple of weeks ago it hit a Matrix
| chat app and it's been restored now. The shit storm will now
| lead to someone at Google escalating this and the app will be
| back soon. I'm pretty sure that banning Parler was a decision
| where a lot of people where involved.
| tempaccount2342 wrote:
| Blacklist is an out-of-date divisive term. We've moved on to
| "banlist" and "allowlist" thx.
| buzzerbetrayed wrote:
| Ah yes, insisting that everything is racial is a great way
| to overcome racism _eyeroll_
|
| How long until night is no longer dark?
| elastolin wrote:
| You are in my blacklist.
| drannex wrote:
| HN rule: Don't snark -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
|
| > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation;
| don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't
| sneer, including at the rest of the community.
| jsilence wrote:
| No we have not. And we don't want to, so please stop this.
| You are free to call it anything you want, but don't tell
| us how to call it.
| cthalupa wrote:
| What do you have to lose by switching to a term that is
| more descriptive and less likely to be offensive to
| someone?
|
| "We've called it that for a long time" isn't really an
| argument to keep doing it.
|
| For non-native speakers, they have to be familiar with
| the idiom or it is a meaningless statement, and whether
| or not the original intent was for it to be related at
| all to skin color, it can feed in to people's unconscious
| biases and perceptions.
|
| There is zero downside in moving to block/denylist and
| allowlist and plenty of upside.
| lurquer wrote:
| I agree.
|
| For some time, I've been troubled by the name of this
| site as well, as it brings to mind the notorious
| insurrectionist, Samuel Hacker, of the Confederate 3rd
| Tennessee Regiment.
|
| I'd like to think naming the site after that racist was
| accidental.
|
| But, adding in "News" after his name -- (pronounce
| similarly to "noose") -- must make many people very
| uncomfortable.
| cthalupa wrote:
| While this is a pithy response, even if Samuel Hacker
| wasn't fictitious, it would still not be a particularly
| good one.
|
| In the United States alone, there are more than 40
| million black people. You do understand the difference
| between 40+ million English speakers who must hear and
| see the color of their skin be used in a negative
| connotation vs. what would be incredibly obscure
| connotations if it was even true?
| jsilence wrote:
| I have never argued that we have used the term whiteliste
| or blacklist for a long time.
|
| What I am arguing against is that the author of the
| comment suggests in a passive aggressive way that the
| above commenter using the term whitelist is somewhat
| backwoodish while the majority of society ('we') has
| progressed to a preferable wording. This is simply not
| true and it is offensive.
|
| Completely independant from the discourse whether the
| proposed change of wording makes sense or is of any
| benefit I refuse to stand by when self-righteous people
| try to over generalise and try to force their point of
| view onto 'us'.
|
| Language does not change by dictating the change or by
| forcing it onto others by derogating them, as has
| happened in this example ('we use the better word, you
| are so backwards').
|
| Language is a convention that gradually changes through a
| process called speaking. If you prefer the terms banlist
| and allowlist, then by all means use it. It might also be
| ok to simply state in a polite and unoffensive manner
| that oneself would prefer these terms. If I hear these
| terms often enough there is a good chance I'll pick it
| up. I have zero stake in keeping the terms whitelist or
| blacklist over the proposed terms banlist and allowlist.
| All the same to me.
|
| It is simply not ok to offend someone with the intention
| of enforcing non offensive language to them.
| cthalupa wrote:
| I'm not a huge fan of the way it was stated - my response
| shows how I tend to frame the discussion - but at a
| certain point you do have to be an activist about other
| people's usage of language.
|
| While I would not say someone using blacklist or
| whitelist today is the same as someone using a racial
| slur, it took people actively admonishing others for
| using racial slurs to push them further and further out
| of common use.
|
| I think it is totally fair to say that using them is
| backwards, and that we should progress to using terms
| that don't place negative connotations around words that
| are the color of peoples' skin. I wouldn't say that
| someone doing something that is backwards makes them as
| an individual backwards, however - I've got plenty of
| habits that are backwards. I try to rectify them -
| sometimes I succeed, sometimes I don't. I don't feel
| personally attacked by someone commenting on those things
| when they happen, however, and instead take it as further
| reinforcement that there's always room for personal
| growth.
| jsilence wrote:
| Quickly looking up the origin of the term blacklist on
| wikipedia reveals that there is no historic connotation
| to race or color of skin in this word (https://en.wikiped
| ia.org/wiki/Blacklisting#Origins_of_the_te...). Black and
| white are just colors. These words in themselves have no
| implicit judgemental meaning.
|
| So by publicly arguing that the term blacklist carries a
| racial negative connotation one would impose this view
| onto the one who is using the word blcklist. This is
| similar to using the term 'the n-word': By saying this
| one is making me thinking the word 'nigger' in my head.
| So while the other one is not saying it, it is projected
| into my head, making me the bad guy. This is nefarious.
|
| I am totally with you with the intention of becoming a
| better person. Same here. I am ok with people stating
| that they are personally offended by something I have
| said. I'll think about it and probably apologize and
| reconsider my language. I am not ok for someone from an
| outside group correcting my language and taking the
| offense for someone else. This person has no say in this.
|
| On top of this I think that there is no right not to be
| offended. That we as societies should not strive for a
| language that is totally non-offensive to anyone. a) It i
| not possible because there is no end to it. It is easy to
| construct yet another sub division of a group that can
| take offense in lmost anything. b) because beeing
| offended is the starting point for societal discourse and
| negotiations. The discourse itself should be performed
| respectfully, and this is essential: While my opinion
| might be offensive to you, we should both have enough
| mutual respect and interest in each other to sort it out
| and come to terms.
| Dma54rhs wrote:
| For the same reason I don't want Google to tell me if I
| can use the polymory dating app. Not a native speaker and
| tech community is global, as is HN. Everyone doesn't have
| to dance in order to satisfy white activists from Silicon
| Valley and their current social dogmas.
| path411 wrote:
| So we can no longer use words that are colors inside of
| an idiom incase people think you are talking about race?
| You have to find some kind of line of reasonability.
| Sure, are there lots of remnants of racism/sexism rooted
| around our culture. But does that mean just nuke anything
| that has a color in it?
|
| Heck, you aren't even thinking of the consequences of
| your actions suddenly turning non racist words into
| having racist meanings. What do you think will happen
| post "blacklist" "culture"? You go from 100% of the
| population using the word "blacklist" with literally 0
| race connotations, to maybe 80-90% of the culture using
| ban or block list, while some 5-10% of the country either
| keeps saying blacklist or starts using n*ggerlist because
| you have now added some new racism into the language.
|
| Want some really really recent examples? "Banning" the
| use of retard, now has everyone calling each other
| autists. Which is waaaay worse lol
| cthalupa wrote:
| We should likely avoid putting negative connotations to
| words that correspond with the colors of peoples' skin,
| yes.
|
| Does every person with black skin care about the use of
| blacklist or whitelist? Of course not. Do some? Of
| course.
|
| If some percentage of the country moves to be actively
| racist in their usage of the word, well, it becomes quite
| clear who they are, and we've got plenty of other
| remedies for dealing with them. Everywhere I have ever
| worked active racism was a terminable offense, and using
| slurs like that would make it readily apparent who was
| being actively racist. It becomes a readily apparent red
| flag for anyone dealing with them.
|
| By no means do I think this sort of change solves all of
| the issues faced by underprivileged groups in America or
| around the world, but it's an easy thing to do that can
| make an incremental improvement in the lives of people
| that can use it.
| zpeti wrote:
| You're making a real difference. A true hero. Well done.
| medstrom wrote:
| HN rule: Don't snark.
| User23 wrote:
| The don't snark rule is obviously homophobic, because
| everyone knows gay men culturally use snark all the time.
| [deleted]
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Taking down Parler was certainly not justified, but I agree it
| was one step down the slippery slope that normalizes this kind
| of brazen gatekeeping on essential public utilities like app
| stores. Facebook played a much larger role in the planning of
| the riot at the capitol riots (https://www.forbes.com/sites/tho
| masbrewster/2021/02/07/shery...) and they faced no
| consequences, presumably because they share the same political
| culture as Google and Apple.
|
| It's also a gross overreaction to shut down Parler because the
| vast majority of people using Parler or supporting Trump did
| not participate in the riot. Tens of thousands were in DC that
| day for various rallies and protests, and thousands stayed
| outside the barricades at the capitol. A few hundred went past
| them as protesters (rioters?), but committed no additional
| crimes beyond trespassing, which is the same as past incidents
| at the capitol like the riots at Brett Kavanaugh hearings
| (https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/405500-212-protesters-
| to...). Ultimately only 10 were associated with the Oath
| Keepers
| (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/29/us/oath-
| keepe...).
|
| And on the balance, Parler had 20 million users
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler) and Trump had north of
| 70 million supporters. It's not justifiable to stop all those
| people from having a voice. How was it at all justifiable for
| AOC to demand Parler be shutdown, for tech companies to
| immediately fall in line by banning the app, and for other
| companies to also participate in a seemingly coordinated
| deplatforming effort? It's also chilling to consider that a
| sitting legislator can call for the shutdown of the speech of
| private citizens - that amounts to the government coercing bans
| of speech from private organizations, and is a first amendment
| violation.
|
| Either way, here we are, in a world where people depend on
| their mobile phones as utilities, but are serviced by companies
| that are not regulated as public utilities. They need to either
| stop being gatekeepers, and act neutrally, or they need to be
| regulated to enforce that requirement. After all, they are
| effectively immune to competition.
| elastolin wrote:
| Agreed, it makes zero sense. And AOC is symbol of the decline
| of the United States.
| fallat wrote:
| Is there not an open APK repository anyone can submit to? It
| could be a community run endeavor and research project even. We
| could develop software to detect APKs which exhibit possible
| malicious behavior and give them scores.
| bobsmooth wrote:
| Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but isn't that F-Droid? But
| that's only for open-source apps.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| Having never owned a smart phone I am curious if you need an app
| for this, or could you simply have an old school forum and people
| visit it on their phones browser? Is that even feasible? Too much
| friction?
| drannex wrote:
| Ease of use. Just as most people in the dating scene these days
| use apps ala Tinder, Match, eHarmony, Her, Bumble, &c this was
| just a service that specifically catered to those looking to be
| in poly relationships or to be part of a community of like-
| minded people (they had overall community experiences built in
| as well).
|
| This allowed you to have separate accounts searching as a solo,
| double, or as a couple as well as built in chat and matching
| systems, traditional apps and forums are not exactly well
| poised for searching nor focused enough for these sort of
| relationships especially as most people are against* polyamory
| in most cases. Most typical forums on the subject only cater to
| the sexual aspect, even if not intended, and tend to bring in
| less than stellar users. This was an attempt to focus more on
| the relationship aspect (definitely more than the approved
| Grindr)
|
| There certainly needs to be an app in this space.
| ttfxxcc wrote:
| Boomers prefer apps because they have a hard time using a web
| browser.
| NullPrefix wrote:
| >Having never owned a smart phone I am curious if you need an
| app for this
|
| Yes. No smartphone will make people think you're a creep.
| /somewhat s
| drannex wrote:
| HN rule: Don't snark or shallow dismissals -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
|
| > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't
| cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer,
| including at the rest of the community.
|
| > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of
| what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to
| criticize. Assume good faith.
|
| > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other
| people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
| joecot wrote:
| Most apps could really be Progressive Web Apps, using html css
| and javascript with local caching and storage. Both angular and
| react can handle running PWAs as do many other frameworks, and
| it's not rocket science to make a PWA. Even Parler had a PWA
| people could use when they got pulled from the store.
|
| The problem is that the extra few steps to install a PWA (which
| is really just a webpage bookmark you put on your home screen
| plus some local caching) are a lot of friction. The hilarity
| after Parler got pulled was non techies trying to describe
| installing a PWA to each other and failing at it.
|
| You also lose a lot of "organic" search results with a PWA. You
| don't get the app marketplace searching/related results like
| Google Play or the Apple Store has if you aren't in the
| marketplace. If you do both marketplace apps and encouraging
| people to install PWAs instead of your app, that's now less
| downloads in the app store and therefore lower rankings. It's
| doable to make a PWA instead of or in addition to an app, and
| that means you're still a usable service if you get pulled from
| stores, but it's not straight forward or perfect right now. The
| push to make Google and Apple let apps stay in their stores is
| the wrong push -- instead the push should be for more straight
| forward PWA support.
| jfengel wrote:
| It's certainly not necessary. A lot of apps are literally just
| the web site packaged up with a call to the built-in browser.
|
| Apps like that are always a little clunky, especially if you
| want to use native features like the GPS or the camera -- both
| of which a dating app will want. They are accessible in the
| browser, but it's not quite seamless.
|
| The experience isn't a forum. You want something a bit more
| tailored to dating. But it's entirely within the realm of a
| browser.
|
| So why package it as an app? More than anything I think it's
| because people expect it. The experience is tuned towards
| interactions on a mobile device. That isn't a huge difference,
| but you're trying to compete in a tough market, and they want
| to feel perfect.
|
| Like the difference between Tinder's "swipe" interaction (left
| for no, right for yes) versus a couple of buttons. The
| usability difference is small, but it's iconic. You could mimic
| it with a browser, but you really want to nail it.
|
| Similarly, having the app right on your front screen rather
| than as just another bookmark... it makes it feel important.
| Small things that make a big difference when you're trying to
| sell an experience.
|
| Experience is critical for a dating app. It's kind of a winner-
| take-all (or most) situation: the more users you have, the more
| likely a user will find somebody they want and who wants them.
| The better it looks, the more likely you'll be the one people
| want to spend time on.
| [deleted]
| 8bitsrule wrote:
| >Google's developer guidelines prohibit apps "that contain or
| promote ... any content or services intended to be sexually
| gratifying."
|
| Very reminiscent of the language of the US Comstock Laws which
| started 148 years ago. One hundred and two years ago, a judge
| called those laws "haphazard and capricious".
|
| Those words seem to fit in this case. And this is not the
| Victorian Era. I imagine Google would rather not be called to
| D.C. again to explain its behavior to a Congress that is
| unwilling to explicitly define it's expectations.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-16 23:03 UTC)