Hacker News Reader

Comment by panarky | Hacker News Reader

Not all platforms aggressively censor content to benefit the owner of the platform.

I can easily use Google search and YouTube to find out how to block Google's own ads[1] and to root Android phones. Google doesn't censor information that hurts Google's interests.

Microsoft's Bing has information on how to replace Windows Media Player with free and open alternatives like VLC.

Bing even suggests searches to prevent Windows 10 from spying[2].

It is possible to run an ethical platform that doesn't tilt the playing field to the provider of the platform. Apple most definitely does not provide an ethical platform.

(By the way, YouTube has a CCC channel[3].)

[1] https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=block+google+ad...

[2] http://imgur.com/K1fGwFt

[3] https://www.youtube.com/user/CCCdeVideos

View on HN

Google banned disconnect.me -- a popular privacy app that blocks various tracking mechanisms (without blocking advertising itself) -- from Android[0]. Apple had no problem with the iOS version.

It seems that each big centralized walled garden has their targets.

[0] http://www.businessinsider.com/why-google-banned-connect-mob...

> It seems that each big centralized walled garden has their targets.

This is false equivalence. Just because you can find an example where Google banned an app does not mean that all platforms are equally unethical.

Google Play simply doesn't allow apps that interfere with other apps. That's the reason the disconnect.me app was removed.

It's telling that other apps from Disconnect are still available on Google Play. Disconnect Search[1], for example, is contrary to Google's interests, but Google does not ban it because it doesn't interfere with other apps.

[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=me.disconnect....

> does not mean that all platforms are equally unethical.

I would agree that Google is more ethical than Apple, for now. But they still do bad things, and they could easily get worse in the future. We need to move away from this kind of centralization, so that no one has the power to unilaterally gag legitimate content.

> Google Play doesn't allow apps that interfere with other apps.

Almost every app "interferes" with others in some way. The "no interference" clause seems clearly intended to target interference which was unwanted by the user, but that is not how Google applied it here.

If the user expressly intends that the app interfere with other apps, then I think that it is unethical to prohibit them from doing so on their own device. Disconnect is not malware; users install it for exactly the purpose it implements.

Interference here is targeted functional manipulation. Not fifth degree unintended side effects. The user's wish is not considered. There's a reason not a lot Xposed modules are on Google Play.

Don't like it? Enable 3rd party sources (a function added by Google!) and install those apps from elsewhere.

> 3rd party sources (a function added by Google!)

It's great that Google allows this. That's one thing that makes them better than Apple (in my opinion).

However, it is still the case that being banned from the Play store can kill an app. Few users know how to sideload things.

In a world where there are several competing app markets that users can easily switch between, it would not be a big deal for Google to refuse to carry apps they don't like on their market, but when 99% of the users realistically can't get apps anywhere else than Google Play, then it becomes problematic.

And then developers who get their apps handicapped by apps promoted next to them takes their apps down. I understand your reasoning, but Google's focus is the ecosystem. If it was trivial for everybody to disable all adds and in-app purchase functions in all free apps with just a few taps, there'd be far fewer of exactly those apps you want to use.

So the rest of us simply have to get Xposed from outside Google Play and root with unofficial methods to make all apps, including proprietary ones, behave exactly as we want on our devices.

> Google Play simply doesn't allow apps that interfere with other apps.

Or apps that play youtube videos while not having focus. There is no defense to that rule. Just trying to act the same as a desktop browser, with ads intact, is not allowed.

Google's response:

"Our Google Play policies (specifically clause 4.4) have long prohibited apps that interfere with other apps (such as by altering their functionality, or removing their way of making money). We apply this policy uniformly — and Android developers strongly support it. All apps must comply with these policies and there’s over 200 privacy apps available in Google Play that do."

https://theintercept.com/2015/06/23/google-disconnect-antitr...

> Google doesn't censor information that hurts Google's interests.

I challenge you to find a Chrome extension in the Chrome web store that lets you download Youtube videos. Does Google allow, say, Amazon app store app in the Play store?

Apple doesn't have a search engine of it's own so I cannot point you to search results showing how to use other software instead of Apple's but do you really think they would censor the results of a search engine? The comparison is irrelevant.

What about that time when Google banned Disconnect from the Play store? [1] Meanwhile Apple actually built a way to create content filters into the OS and actively promotes them in the App Store.

I'm not saying that Apple is without fault, certainly not, but neither of the big companies are a shining beacon of enlightenment, and every one of them operates out of self-interest.

[1] http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2411562/google-slap...

> I challenge you to find a Chrome extension in the Chrome web store that lets you download Youtube videos.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/search/youtube%20download...

You just linked to a search result page where there is only one extension with 57 reviews that purports to be able to do that. It's liable to get pulled if it gets any more popular.

Every other app is just a generic video downloader and many explicitly mention that they cannot download youtube videos due to Chrome store restrictions.

> It's liable to get pulled if it gets any more popular

Seems to me like instead of conceding that your challenge has been met, you are changing the goalposts.

They regularly get pulled. Wanting an app that is going to still exist in a week is not moving the goalposts. The point is that the rules have removed all good apps with those features from the store.

In other words, someone found exactly what you said didn't exist, and now you're moving the goalposts?

pretty much what I was thinking

> I challenge you to find a Chrome extension in the Chrome web store that lets you download Youtube videos

Are there _any_ Chrome extensions that allow downloading _any_ streaming content, from _any_ source, not just YouTube?

For example, does Chrome allow extensions that save streams from Pandora, or Hulu, or Reuters, or Facebook Video?

Seems to me this policy is enforced equally, it doesn't favor Google properties or exclude competitors.

The Chrome developer agreement states that these extensions are prohibited:

  infringes on the intellectual property rights of others

  enables the unauthorized download of streaming content or media

https://developer.chrome.com/webstore/terms

I don't know, this here seems pretty popular: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/video-downloader-p...

It doesn't work with the sites you mentioned, at least not with Reuters or Facebook but it does work with many others. Why is, for example, Vimeo fair game for this extension but Youtube isn't?

Maybe because Vimeo has download links on some of their videos?

vimeo is about video. youtube is about ads.

there's a reason videographers are on vimeo and photographers are on Flickr.

CCCdeVideos is a) the German Channel. b) not an official Channel.

The CCC recommends using their official Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/mediacccde

Actually they recommend not using Youtube but https://media.ccc.de/ instead.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com