But then again, I haven't seen a Google booze ad. Do they allow alcohol ads?
Not you specifically, but most people on HN have probably been the overwhelming beneficiaries of this approach.
Not really, for most of humanity's history people could barely even figure out what happened on the other side of the mountain or the sea.
The extreme degree of globalisation that carries these policies and attitudes across the globe is pretty new. It wasn't even the case in the 60s or 70s say. It's predominantly online markets that are dominated by individual companies, control used to be significantly more national.
And yet, for around 30,000 years people have been going off to battle to impose ideals, take stuff, or stop other folks imposing ideals and taking stuff. The average mook in those battles may not have known what was going on, nor did the folks who stayed home in relative safety, but make no mistake, the wealthy and powerful have been imposing their morality as long as there has been a threat to wealth and power... it just happens much more quickly and broadly these days.
This also came with the imposition of Victorian morals everywhere (bans on homosexuality, mandatory opium).
That doesn't make it right.
Just curious.
Let's take a relatively trivial example: TV "appropriateness." Mainland western Europe have different standards to the US. They are more tolerant of bad language and nudity in daytime programming, less tolerant of violence. Other places have different tolerances (political & religious taboos, often).
YouTube's policies are clearly of the US flavour.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJX8EALqb4PzmhYdnK6Ax...
It's the same backwards situation on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/BhrSKOiFawg/
They should dub that to English. If parents want that sort of "there's no shame here" approach.. there's probably no English equivalents.
I don't think that's the reason. Episode 1 has full female nudity and a scene with menstrual blood running down a leg. Episode 6 has a close up of a very cleanly waxed vagina from a skinny woman. That probably tripped child porn filters (automated or manual).
Did not expect my day to include watching Norweigan puberty videos.
I didn't see the bloody one. Just as well, because the last time I saw that was in a horror movie.
PS: Your last sentence made me laugh.
Even if it is, an automated filter being more sensitive to detecting female child porn than male is a lot more innocuous then banning a video because it talks about female puberty.
It's not quite the same thing but a company like netflix offers different shows in different countries, spotify's the same for songs. This is more down to licensing than censorship and the scale is quite different from social media but it's a demonstration on how a company can provide different content per region.
Of course, if you flip the argument on it's head, we're annoyed that a company like Google is censoring things which are allowed or common place in society outside of the US. we wouldn't want google censoring content that we consider "enlightened" into countries which we consider backwards (which they no doubt do) and that's always the hypocrisy of these positions.
The end result is, global companies can't do business that is legal on some countries, but illegal on majority of coutries.
On some illegal activities such as endorsing the woman's right, freedom of speech, democracy, alcohol(There are countries which prohibit these), they ignore it since it has established its place or not dealing with are also serious crime, or the countries which prohibit such act is minority. But for totally new topic like marijuana, It's safer to not dealing with.
Can't they make the apps available in certain countries but not others? I.e. do something that's legal in the country in question? I don't know the legal specifics but it's seem silly to me if they weren't able to.
Marijuana is federally illegal in the United States, helping people buy it could easily be argued as a crime which exposes/risks Google's EVERYTHING - financial holdings, records, government contracts etc.
I do hope that "America's norms" aren't those of Trump and if you haven't noticed. Both democrates and liberals have agreed on the trade war.
China's adherence to the Paris Accord despite agreeing to far greater cuts in emissions than most of the developed world is globally recognised. Trump pulled out of the worldwide agreement a few years ago and regardless the States wasn't even on track to meet it's paltry targets.
The hypocrisy is front and center on the world stage.
Trump pulled out and a lot of companies objected and states added local laws to object to him. Companies did extra efforts, without subsidies, because they can.
Trump ( luckily) isn't a generalisation of America.
As ofc XI isn't, but XI ( more the communist party) is the absolute boss of every Chinese company. If he really says no, it's done.
And of course, he wants everyone to buy solar and all other tech of the Chinese. So there is money involved ;)
Trump seems to be just a puppet for some game-over companies, extending their EOL.
The EU is launching emissions monitoring satellites soon and unless you discredit them too the reality will come out soon enough.
There's a very real reason the US pulled out of an international agreement that everyone else agrees too and it's an ugly truth why.
In this case it isn't. Marijuana is federally illegal in the United States, if they profit at all from apps that help connect buyers and sellers of an illicit (in the U.S>) substance, they suddenly expose themselves. They could lose government contracts, they could face criminal investigation, could have funds seized, could have payment processors and banks drop them as customers, etc.
https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/6012382
Surprisingly, the answer is "yes". But alcohol ads can only be shown on sites which have explicitly opted in to alcohol ads, which most sites don't.
https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/05/29/no-chill-google-jus...
The apps are legal as long as google isn't the one processing money from drug related transactions.
Which, while disappointing, does make sense.
I don't see why it'd be different to, for example, Starbucks vs your local quality coffee shop, both co-existing.
The way legalization happened here is incompetent. There are even output limits: for one friends little grow op, where he is not allowed to overproduce.
Or, have they silently permitted it on their App Store but never openly said “this is fine”?
It maybe starts to get a bit more hairy since some of them now also sell tobacco and CBD products alongside the alcohol.
https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...