Google Finally Restores ‘Downloader’ App To Store

Copyright

from the insanity dept

A couple of weeks back, we discussed how Google had delisted the app Downloader from the Play Store after a DMCA notice was issued by a firm representing several Israeli TV networks. The problem with all of this is simple: Downloader doesn’t have anything to do with copyright infringement or piracy. All it does is combine a file manager and basic web browser. The DMCA notice centered on the latter, complaining that users could get to piracy sites from the browser. You know, just like you can from any browser.

Well, take heart, dear friends, because Google reinstated Downloader on the Play Store 20 days after it was removed.

Google has reversed the suspension of an Android TV app that was hit with a copyright complaint simply because it is able to load a pirate website that can also be loaded in any standard web browser. The Downloader app, which combines a web browser with a file manager, is back in the Google Play Store after nearly a three-week absence.

In addition to the rejected appeal, Saba filed a DMCA counter-notification with Google. That “started a 10-business-day countdown for the [TV companies’] law firm to file legal actions against me,” Saba wrote today. “Due to the app being removed on a Friday and the Memorial Day holiday, 10 business days had elapsed with no word from the law firm on June 6th and I contacted Google to have the app reinstated.”

All of which is why Google, further down the article, is quoted as saying they followed the standard playbook to DMCA takedown notices. The counter-notification kicked off that process, giving the firm that issued the original notice time to decide whether to file a lawsuit or not, which it presumably did not. The quote has all the hallmarks of Google resting on that process to wipe its hands clean of the whole situation.

But that’s stupid. It also serves as an example proving Saba’s point: the DMCA takedown process is broken. That a bunch of foreign TV networks can get a perfectly legit app removed from the app store for weeks just by pushing paperwork around is absurd.

As is Google’s continued inability to get things right with regard to this particular app.

In yet another example of the Google Play Store’s absurdity, Google had determined that my app collected email addresses without declaring so. Since there is no way for my app itself to collect email addresses, and without any additional information or help from Google, I can only assume that Google is referring to the email mailing list signup form on this website, which loads by default in the web browser of the Downloader app.

Once again, that isn’t the app doing a thing; it’s the web browser doing it if someone signs up to be on an email list.

So, the app is back, a lawsuit has not yet been filed, and everyone will probably forget about this entire thing, meaning the broken nature of the DMCA process will remain broken. Bang up job all around.

Filed Under: android, app store, copyright, dmca, dmca takedown, downloader, play store
Companies: google

Google Nixes ‘Downloader’ App From Store After DMCA Says Its Browser Can Get To Piracy Sites

Copyright

from the bye-bye-browsers! dept

As anyone who reads this site regularly will know, DMCA abuse happens all the time. Typically you see this sort of thing resulting from clear attempts to hobble a competitor, or to silence content someone doesn’t want to see, or pure trolling for the purposes of producing mayhem. But we also see this kind of “abuse” stemming from entities, foreign and domestic, that simply don’t know the strictures under which DMCA and copyright law actually operate.

A potential example of this would be what just happened to an app called “Downloader,” which was bounced from the Google Play store after a DMCA notice from a law firm representing several Israeli television organizations. The app’s creator, Elias Saba, shared the details of the notice Google sent to him, as well as his confusion over why any of this is happening, given what his app actually is and does.

“You can see in the DMCA description portion that the only reason given is the app being able to load a website,” Saba told Ars. “My app is a utility app that combines a basic file manager and a basic web browser. There is no way to view content in the app other than to use the web browser to navigate to a website. The app also doesn’t present or direct users to any website, other than my blog at www.aftvnews.com, which loads as the default homepage in the web browser.”

Saba also detailed his frustrations with the takedown in a blog post and a series of tweets. “Any rational person would agree that you can’t possibly blame a web browser for the pirated content that exists on the Internet, but that is exactly what has happened to my app,” he wrote on his blog.

He follows up in a later comment with the exact question I would have: if “Downloader” is going to be nixed from the Play Store, then so should every other browser application in the store. Like, oh I don’t know, Google Chrome. After all, if Chrome can get to that site, and it can, then the same complaint can be lodged against Chrome.

And whether this is simple ignorance or true DMCA fraud, the fact is that none of this makes sense from a DMCA perspective. And, yet:

Saba said he filed appeals on Friday through the Google Play Console and Google’s DMCA counter notification form. Saba’s Google Play Console appeal was rejected within about an hour, but he’s still waiting for a response to the appeal filed via Google’s DMCA counter notification form, he told Ars today.

“We’ve reviewed your appeal request but we’re still unable to reinstate your app,” the Google Play appeal rejection notice said on Friday.

My wild guess is that once an actual conversation happens between Saba and Google so that he can explain what his app actually does, it will be reinstated. The app is still in a published state on other stores, such as for the Amazon FireTV. There is absolutely no reason it should have been delisted from the Play Store.

Filed Under: app store, copyright, dmca, downloader, elias saba, google play, play store
Companies: google

Google Facing Yet Another Antitrust Lawsuit Over Its App Store Practices, Even Though Android Is Quite Permissive

Legal Issues

from the not-sure-I-get-this-one dept

Another day, another antitrust lawsuit against Google. This one, filed by 36 states and Washington DC, says that the company’s practices regarding its Android app store violate antitrust law. This is now the fourth antitrust lawsuit filed by various governments in the US against Google. There’s the DOJ lawsuit, one from nine state AGs, another from 10 state AGs, and now this new one. I get that everyone wants to hate on the big tech companies these days, and they also want to throw a bunch of things at the wall, but would it really have been that difficult to go through all of this in one single lawsuit?

As with the previous lawsuits, this one leaves me scratching my head. I kept expecting there to be some bombshell or some smoking gun. But, once again, this lawsuit seems to take things that were done for perfectly reasonable reasons and attack them as anti-competitive.

The oddest thing, of course, is that of any “app store” out there, Android is the most permissive around. Apple’s iOS is much more restrictive. You can’t get apps onto an iPhone without first getting them approved by Apple. Ditto for other proprietary platforms like video game consoles. Google, on the other hand, allows users to sideload apps and also to install alternative app stores entirely. For example, Amazon has long had its own Android app store (and, notably, in the new version of Windows, users will be able to install Android apps on their desktop machines via Amazon’s app store). That’s a lot more open than most similarly situated platforms.

The complaint makes a big deal about how Google “discourages” people from sideloading apps or using alternative app stores:

Although Google leaves open the technical possibility for Android consumers to acquire some apps without using the Play Store, this can only be accomplished through a competing app store installed on the device (either through preloading by an OEM or through the user sideloading the store), or through sideloading of individual apps. Google takes various steps to discourage OEMs from directly competing or sponsoring any app store competition. Google makes the sideloading process unnecessarily cumbersome and impractical by adding superfluous, misleading, and discouraging security warnings and by deterring users by requiring them to grant permission multiple times for a single app installation (discussed in more detail in Sections I.C. and I.D. below). The effect of Google?s conduct is to practically eliminate competition in Android app distribution.

But, uh, this kinda leaves out some of the details here — which is that earlier, when Google was much more permissive about sideloading apps, there were lots of complaints about the dangers of sideloading and third party app stores. Indeed, some device makers used to refer to Android allowing sideloading as creating a “chaotic cesspool” of security problems and piracy.

In response, Google did get more serious about making sure users really understood the risks and really wanted to install 3rd party apps. But, again, it still does allow this — much more readily than others. And yes, it’s true that this probably makes it more difficult for third party app stores to survive, but if Google didn’t do this it would also be slammed left, right, and center by everyone for not “policing” its phones and allowing security risks and piracy to run rampant. It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.

I don’t disagree that it would be nice if Google were more open to 3rd party app stores, and didn’t necessarily make you jump through so many hoops, but is that seriously an antitrust violation? Even the market definition (the key to any antitrust case) is… weird. Obviously, how you define the market will show whether or not there’s a monopoly — and if you define the market as “the products that only this company makes” then of course that’s a monopoly. But that’s not really relevant for a question of whether or not there is anti-competitive behavior. But here, these states have come up with a market definition that is basically just Android. They’re not even doing the “mobile operating system” market. Instead, they claim that the relevant market is specifically “the licensable mobile OS market” — meaning that Apple iOS (which is not licensable from Apple) is excluded.

The licensable mobile OS market also excludes OSs that are unsuitable for mobile devices, such as OSs for simple cell phones, ?flip phones,? or feature phones, or for other electronic devices (such as laptop computers, desktop computers, and gaming consoles, e.g., Nintendo DS, Xbox, PlayStation) that are not mobile devices.

If I’m reading this right, they’re actually suggesting that if Google had decided not to license its OS, and not to let competing device manufacturers build their own competing phones, then they would have less of an antitrust case against Google. And that seems… weird? And kind of nonsensical.

Maybe I’m missing something here, but it seems like Apple’s control of iOS is a lot more strict, ditto for Nintendo, Microsoft with Xbox, and Sony with the PlayStation. Google’s decision to license its OS and enable much wider competition, as well as allowing some sideloading and 3rd party app stores, seems a hell of a lot more competitive than all those other services — and yet that’s all being used against Google, but not the others?

It also seems like this lawsuit may run into the same problem that resulted in various states’ lawsuits against Facebook to get tossed: why now? Android has acted this way for years, and why are these state AGs suddenly deciding it’s a problem?

I’m all for having more competition at every level of the stack, but I’m confused as to how this is a legitimate antitrust claim.

Filed Under: 3rd party app stores, android, antitrust, app store, competition, licensable mobile operating system, market definition, mobile operating systems, play store, sideloading
Companies: google

A Few More Thoughts On The Total Deplatforming Of Parler & Infrastructure Content Moderation

Content Moderation

from the it's-tricky dept

I’ve delayed writing deeper thoughts on the total deplatforming of Parler, in part because there was so much else happening (including some more timely posts about Parler’s lawsuit regarding it), but more importantly because for years I’ve been calling for people to think more deeply about content moderation at the infrastructure layer, rather than at the edge. Because those issues are much more complicated than the usual content moderation debates.

And once again I’m going to make the mistake of offering a nuanced argument on the internet. I urge you to read through this entire post, resist any kneejerk responses, and consider the larger issues. In fact, when I started to write this post, I thought it was going to argue that the moves against Parler, while legal, were actually a mistake and something to be concerned about. But as I explored the arguments, I simply couldn’t justify any of them. Upon inspection, they all fell apart. And so I think I’ll return to my initial stance that the companies are free to make decisions here. There should be concern, however, when regulators and policymakers start talking about content moderation at the infrastructure layer.

The “too long, didn’t read” version of this argument (and again, please try to understand the nuance) is that even though Parler is currently down, it’s not due to a single company having total control over the market. There are alternatives. And while it appears that Parler is having difficulty finding any such alternative to work with it, that’s the nature of a free market. If you are so toxic that companies don’t want to do business with you, that’s on you. Not them.

It is possible to feel somewhat conflicted over this. I initially felt uncomfortable with Amazon removing Parler from AWS hosting, effectively shutting down the service, and with Apple removing its app from the app store, effectively barring it from iPhones. In both cases, those seemed like very big guns that weren’t narrowly targeted. I was less concerned about Google’s similar removal, because that didn’t block Parler from Android phones, since you don’t have to go through Google to get on an Android phone. But (and this is important) I think all three moves are clearly legal and reasonable steps for the companies to take. As I explored each issue, I kept coming back to a simple point: the problems Parler is currently facing are due to its own actions and the unwillingness of companies to associate with an operation so toxic. That’s the free market.

If Parler’s situation was caused by government pressure or because there were no other options for the company, then I would be a lot more concerned. But that does not appear to be the case.

The internet infrastructure stack is represented in different ways, and there’s no one definitive model. But an easy way to think of it is that there are “edge” providers — the websites you interact with directly — and then there’s everything beneath them: the Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) that help route traffic, the hosting companies/data centers/cloud providers that host the actual content, the broadband/network/access providers, and the domain registers and registrars that help handle the naming and routing setup. And there are lots of other players in there as well, some (like advertising and certain communications providers) with elements on the edge and elements deeper in the stack.

But a key thing to understand is the level of granularity with which different players can moderate, and the overall impact their moderation can have. It’s one thing for Twitter to remove a tweet. It’s another thing for Comcast to say “you can’t access the internet at all.” The consequences of moderation get much more severe the deeper you go into the stack. In this case, AWS’s only real option for Parler was to remove the entire service, because it couldn’t just target the problematic content (of which there was quite a lot). As for the app stores, it’s a tricky question. Are app stores infrastructure, or edge? Perhaps they are a little of both, but they had the same limited options: remove the app entirely, or leave it up with all its content intact.

For many years, we’ve talked about the risks of saying that players deeper in the infrastructure stack should be responsible for content moderation. I was concerned, back in 2014, when there was talk of putting liability on domain registrars if domains they had registered were used for websites that broke the law. There have been a few efforts to hold such players responsible as if they were the actual lawbreakers, and that obviously creates all sorts of problems, especially at the 1st Amendment level. As you move deeper into the stack, the moderation options look less like scalpels and more like sledgehammers that remove entire websites from existence.

Almost exactly a decade ago, in a situation that has some parallels to what’s happened now, I highlighted concerns about Amazon deciding to deplatform Wikileaks in response to angry demands from then Senator Joe Lieberman. I found that to be highly problematic, and likely unconstitutional — though Wikileaks, without a US presence, had little standing to challenge it at the time. My concern was less with Amazon’s decision, and more with Lieberman’s pressure.

But it’s important to go back to first principles in thinking through these issues. It’s quite clear that companies like Amazon, Apple, and Google have every legal right to remove services they don’t want to associate with, and there are a ton of reasons why people and companies might not want to associate with Parler. But many people are concerned about the takedowns based on the idea that Parler might be “totally” deplatformed, and that one company saying “we don’t want you here” could leave them with no other options. That’s not so much a content moderation question, as a competition one.

If it’s a competition question, then I don’t see why Amazon’s decision is really a problem either. AWS only has 32% marketshare. There are many other options out there — including the Trump-friendly cloud services of Oracle, which promotes how easy it is to switch from AWS on its own website. Oracle’s cloud already hosts Zoom (and now TikTok’s US services). There’s no reason they can’t also host Parler.*

But, at least according to Parler, it has been having trouble finding an alternative that will host it. And on that front it’s difficult to feel sympathy. Any business has to build relationships with other businesses to survive, and if no other businesses want to work with you, you might go out of business. Landlords might not want to rent to troublesome tenants. Fashion houses might choose not to buy from factories with exploitative labor practices. Businesses police each other’s business practices all the time, and if you’re so toxic that no one wants to touch you… at some point, maybe that’s on you, Parler.

The situation with Apple and Google is slightly different, and again, there are lots of nuances to consider. With Apple, obviously, it is controlling access to its own hardware, the iPhone. And there’s a reasonable argument to be made that Apple offers the complete package, and part of that deal is that you can only add apps through its app store. Apple has long argued that it does this to keep the phone secure, though it could raise some anti-competitive concerns as well. But Apple has banned plenty of apps in the past (including Parler competitor Gab). And that’s part of the nature of iPhone ownership. And, really, there is a way to route around Apple’s app store: you can still create web apps that will work on iOS without going through the store. This does limit functionality and the ability to reach deeper into the iPhone for certain features, but those are the tradeoffs.

With Google, it seems like there should be even less concern. Not only could Parler work as a web app, Google does allow you to sideload apps without using the Google Play store. So the limitation was simply that Google didn’t want the app in its own store. Indeed, before Amazon took all of Parler down, the company was promoting its own APK to sideload on Android phones.

In the end, it’s tough to argue that this is as worrisome as my initial gut reaction said. I am still concerned about content moderation when it reaches the infrastructure layer. I am quite concerned that people aren’t thinking through the kind of governance questions raised by these sledgehammer-not-scalpel decisions. But when exploring each of the issues as it relates to Parler specifically, it’s hard to find anything to be that directly concerned about. There are, mostly, alternatives available for Parler. And in the one area that there apparently aren’t (cloud hosting) it seems to be less because AWS has market power, and more because lots of companies just don’t want to associate with Parler.

And that is basically the free market telling Parler to get its act together.

* It’s noteworthy that AWS customers can easily migrate to Oracle Cloud only because Oracle copied AWS’s API without permission which, according to its own lawyers is copyright infringement. Never expect Oracle to not be hypocritical.

Filed Under: app stores, aws, cloud computing, content moderation, deplatforming, infrastructure, network stack, play store
Companies: amazon, apple, google, parler

The Fortnite App Store Battle: A Real Antitrust Conundrum, Or Just A Carefully Planned Out Contract Negotiation?

Legal Issues

from the a-little-from-column-a... dept

Last week there was quite a lot of news paid to Apple kicking Fortnite out of the iOS app store for violating the rules by avoiding Apple’s in-app payment setup (out of which Apple takes 30%). Epic, who had been hinting at this for a while, introduced a direct payment offering that effectively avoided the 30% charge that Apple (and Google) require from developers.

There have been arguments over the last decade or so since Apple implemented its policy requiring subscription revenue to go through Apple’s system — but this is probably the biggest fight yet. Epic was clearly expecting Apple to do this because almost immediately after Fortnite was removed from the app store, Epic first released a Nineteen Eighty-Fortnite parody ad, mocking Apple’s infamous 1984 Superbowl ad.

Almost immediately, Epic also sued Apple over the removal in a legal complaint that was clearly prepared well in advance. Represented by some of the top antitrust lawyers in the country, and weighing in at 65 pages, Epic had spent some time preparing for this fight. To drive this point home, the lawsuit itself references 1984 in the opening paragraph, tying into Epic’s marketing campaign:

In 1984, the fledgling Apple computer company released the Macintosh?the first mass-market, consumer-friendly home computer. The product launch was announced with a breathtaking advertisement evoking George Orwell?s 1984 that cast Apple as a beneficial, revolutionary force breaking IBM?s monopoly over the computing technology market. Apple?s founder Steve Jobs introduced the first showing of the 1984 advertisement by explaining, ?it appears IBM wants it all. Apple is perceived to be the only hope to offer IBM a run for its money . . . . Will Big Blue dominate the entire computer industry? The entire information age? Was George Orwell right about 1984??

Fast forward to 2020, and Apple has become what it once railed against: the behemoth seeking to control markets, block competition, and stifle innovation. Apple is bigger, more powerful, more entrenched, and more pernicious than the monopolists of yesteryear. At a market cap of nearly $2 trillion, Apple?s size and reach far exceeds that of any technology monopolist in history.

The coordination between product, marketing, and legal shows that Epic was well aware of what it was doing.

And, almost immediately after all of that, Google also kicked Fortnite out of its app store, and Epic sued Google too. Rather than opening with the 1984 line (which wouldn’t apply to Google), in this case, Epic’s lawyers leaned on the “Don’t Be Evil” line:

In 1998, Google was founded as an exciting young company with a unique motto: ?Don?t Be Evil?. Google?s Code of Conduct explained that this admonishment was about ?how we serve our users? and ?much more than that . . . it?s also about doing the right thing more generally?. Twenty-two years later, Google has relegated its motto to nearly an afterthought, and is using its size to do evil upon competitors, innovators, customers, and users in a slew of markets it has grown to monopolize. This case is about doing the right thing in one important area, the Android mobile ecosystem, where Google unlawfully maintains monopolies in multiple related markets, denying consumers the freedom to enjoy their mobile devices?freedom that Google always promised Android users would have.

Google acquired the Android mobile operating system more than a decade ago, promising repeatedly over time that Android would be the basis for an ?open? ecosystem in which industry participants could freely innovate and compete without unnecessary restrictions.2 Google?s CEO, Sundar Pichai, represented in 2014 that Android ?is one of the most open systems that I?ve ever seen?.3 And Andy Rubin, an Android founder who is described by some as the ?Father of Android?, said when he departed Google in 2013 that ?at its core, Android has always been about openness?.4 Since then, Google has deliberately and systematically closed the Android ecosystem to competition, breaking the promises it made. Google?s anti-competitive conduct has now been condemned by regulators the world over.

Both lawsuits argue that this is an antitrust violation. Also, in both cases, Epic makes it clear (again, strategic marketing at work) that it’s not seeking monetary damages, but is demanding that both companies change their practices regarding what cut they take from in-app payments via the app stores. Of course, if it gets rid of having to hand over 30% to Apple and Google, Epic stands to make a lot more money (even if it then discounts in-app purchases that are done directly, as it did with this update).

Of course, when various mutli-billion dollar giants battle in court, you know there’s a lot happening behind the scenes. From a pure narrative perspective, you can see Epic’s point. Fortnite’s success on mobile is not about the benefits provided by the app stores on either of the major mobile operating systems. And, to be clear, Epic had explored this area in the past. Two years ago it tried to avoid the Google Play Store to protest the 30% cut (which is possible, though clunky, on Android), but eventually gave in and went back into the Play Store.

From Apple’s standpoint, Epic’s move put it in a no-win position. If it let Epic do this with Fortnite, tons of other developers would claim that Epic was getting preferential treatment, and thus letting Epic’s move slide would create massive problems in its own way. But pulling Fortnite down from app store created a new set of problems as well (including this antitrust suit). Then Google was similarly put in an impossible situation. Right after seeing what happened with Apple, Google basically had to make a similar call, knowing that it had to decide if it was going to stand firm like Apple (and face a certain lawsuit) or cave and create a whole host of other problems.

From Epic’s vantage point, this was a shot that the company had to take. The company’s CEO, Tim Sweeney, has a history of not liking rent-seeking by middlemen. And while the antitrust fight can be costly, a win (either by settlement or by the results of litigation) would be a huge win, and a loss would effectively leave Epic in the same position it’s in now (though with some quite hefty legal bills that the company can easily afford).

As for the legal arguments… I think it’s an uphill climb. The public narrative may sound good, but the actual antitrust laws are going to make this quite difficult to win.

To some extent, this comes down to one of the key differences between the mobile universe — which is much more closed, limited, and controlled by gatekeepers — and the wider, more open internet ecosystem. And, to their credit, both Apple and Google have done a lot to build the entire smartphone/tablet ecosystem with iOS and Android, though it is disappointing that over time Google has progressively moved away from its more “open” promises regarding Android. That said, being more closed and proprietary has allowed both companies (and especially Apple) to argue that their devices are a lot more secure than computers and an internet where anything goes.

Also, much of this fight ignores that in the console world, 30% is also the standard fee. It certainly looks like, pretty much across the board, devices used for gaming have decided that the entrance fee to get on a device is about 30% of any in-app purchases. As John Gruber notes, Sweeney seems to handwave around the dedicated gaming consoles argument — suggesting that somehow the 30% makes sense there, because of the nature of those consoles. But that does seem to undermine his overall argument (and may also doom his legal argument).

I don’t know what the right answer is here, and I don’t find myself particularly rooting for any one of these giant companies in this fight. I wish mobile platforms were more open, but I understand why they’re not. I also don’t think that the activity Google and Apple engage in will trip the wire under current antitrust law. And thus, if Apple and Google do stand firm, I think Epic loses in the long run. But it can be a very long run, and it might just be worth it for Epic to try to force its view of the mobile app market onto that world.

But, of course, to some extent, everything is a negotiation. And there’s a part of me that wonders if Epic isn’t just hoping to use this as an “initial offer” to get Apple and Google to agree to a favorable deal to allow Fortnite back into the app stores. That, of course, would raise a bunch of other questions — including other developers demanding similar treatment. But I could see some sort of tiered system worked out, whereby Apple and Google agree that at certain levels of revenue, the cuts they take drop. Just to get this lawsuit out of the way.

No matter how you feel though, this is going to be a big fight to watch over the coming months and years. It’s almost as fascinating as Fortnite itself.

Filed Under: $30, antitrust, app store, fortnite, marketplaces, play store, tim sweeney
Companies: apple, epic, google

Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible: Google Removes Podcast Addict From Play Store Because It Has COVID-19 Related Podcasts

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the the-fight-against-misinformation-has-consequences dept

Today’s example of the Masnick Impossibility Theorem is quite a doozy. Podcast Addict, a very popular mobile podcast player, says that Google removed its app from the Play Store, supposedly for violating Google’s new rules related to COVID-19. Like pretty much all big internet platforms, Google’s Play Store is trying to combat “misinformation” and “disinformation” about COVID-19. A few months back we saw this issue play out with Google advertisements, in which it was blocking politicians from advertising about the failed response of various elected officials to the pandemic, because it said only “official” government entities could advertise about COVID-19.

In this case, the “problem” seems to be that via Podcast Addict… you can get podcasts about COVID-19:

As the notice says, the app has been suspended because “apps referencing COVID-19, or related terms, in any form will only be approved for distribution on Google Play if they are published, commissioned, or authorized by official government entities or public health organizations.” But, uh, the app doesn’t “reference” COVID-19. It just had podcasts about it (as, I should note, does Google’s own podcasting app and YouTube).

Podcast Addict has also clarified that it made no mention of COVID-19 in any of its description or keywords. It wasn’t promoting its app as a way to get COVID-19 info (though, even if it did, it seems like that shouldn’t be a problem).

So, at the very least, it’s a little perplexing why Google’s Play Store removed the app, but it’s almost certainly yet another example of the Impossibility Theorem: I’m sure that the Play Store has a bunch of people frantically trying to spot and pull down a variety of apps that are spewing dangerous mis- and disinformation (and, rest assured that when they inevitably miss some, reporters and others will quickly call out the company’s “failure” to properly police this stuff). And somehow, the sweep of such apps got Podcast Addict caught up in the mess, most likely because a bunch of podcasts right now are talking about COVID-19, and a few new podcasts have sprung up recently entirely focused on the pandemic. I don’t remember how Podcast Addict works exactly (I had tried it out last year, but went with a different app personally), but it’s likely that it would have parts of its app promoting popular or trending podcasts, and it’s likely that some COVID-19 ones would be in that list. That’s not a good reason to remove such an app (and if it were, a ton of other platform related apps should be pulled too…), but it is at least a possible reason for why it happened.

That’s not a good thing, by any stretch of the imagination, and hopefully Google fixes this quickly. Also, Google could do more to be transparent about how it decided to remove Podcast Addict, and what processes it’s putting in place to avoid those kinds of mistakes in the future. But, again, it’s doing all of this while simultaneously trying to keep other, actually problematic, apps out of its store, because lots and lots of reporters have published stories slamming Google repeatedly for allowing “dangerous” apps in its store in the past.

Meanwhile, in an odd twist, the Google Play Store’s Twitter account responded to Podcast Addict’s Twitter account to suggest they were escalating this issue:

Hopefully this gets fixed soon.

Filed Under: apps, content moderation, content moderation at scale, covid-19, masnick's impossibility theorem, play store, podcasts
Companies: google, podcast addict

Google Removed Catalonian Referendum App Following Spanish Court Order

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the this-seems-problematic dept

Last month, we wrote about the crazy situation in Spain, where the government was so totally freaked out about a Catalonian referendum on independence that it shut down the operators of the .cat domain, arrested the company’s head of IT for “sedition” and basically shut down a ton of websites about the referendum. The Washington Post now has an article with even more details about the digital attacks in both directions around the Catalonian independence referendum, including hack attacks and DDoS attacks. But one thing caught my eye. Apparently, the supporters of the referendum had created an app called “On Votar 1-Oct.” The app had a bunch of the expected functions:

The app, available on Google Play until just before 7 p.m. on Friday, helps people to find their polling station via their address and shows the closest polling stations on Google Maps via GPS, the name of the town or keywords.

It also allows users to share links to polling station locations.

But the Spanish government was so freaked out by the referendum and anything related to it, that it ran and got a court order demanding Google take the app out of Google’s app store:

The court order told Google Inc?at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View CA 94043 (USA)?to take down the app located at that URL and also to block or eliminate any future apps submitted by the user with e-mail address “onvotar1oct@gmail.com” or identifying as “Catalonia Voting Software”.

The judge says in her ruling that the tweet with the app link is “only a continuation of the actions of the [Catalan government] to block” Constitutional Court and High Court orders “repeatedly”.

In the Washington Post article, the CTO of the Catalonian government explains why this is so disappointing:

?I?m a tech guy,? says Jordi Puigner?, chief technology officer of the Catalonian government. ?So I?ve always been a great fan of Google and its principles of respect for digital rights. But now I?m really disappointed with the company.? (Puigner??s office was also occupied by police during the referendum, he says.)

And you can understand why he’s disappointed. But, the real problem here, seems to be going back to the same problem we keep identifying over and over again: deep centralization of the digital world. Part of the very promise of Android was that it was supposed to be open, and people weren’t supposed to be locked into just Google’s app store. And, indeed, there are competing app stores — but the general argument around them (with the possible exception of Amazon’s competing Android app store) is that if you want to keep your device secure, you’ll only download via Google’s app store.

And then we’re back to a problem where there’s a centralized choke point for censorship — one which the Spanish government is able to exploit to make that app much more difficult to access. Google, for its part, said it took the app down because it had received a valid court order. And, that’s true, but it’s also opening up yet another path to widespread censorship. Google has stood up against similar situations in the past, but the decision of whether or not a movement should be stifled should never come down to whether or not a giant company like Google decides its worth taking a moral stand against a legal court order. The problem is much more systemic, and its built into this world where we’ve started to build back up gatekeepers.

For nearly two decades, I’ve argued that the real power of the internet was not — as many people initally argued — that it got rid of “middlemen,” but rather that the middlemen turned into enablers rather than gatekeepers. In the old world, when only some content could get released/published/sold/etc., you had to rely on gatekeepers to choose which tiny percentage would get blessed. The power of internet platforms was that they became enablers, allowing anyone to use those platforms and to publish/release/sell/distribute things themselves, often to a much wider audience. But there’a always a risk that over time, former enablers become gatekeepers. And it’s a fear we should be very conscious about — even if it’s not done on purpose.

To be clear, I don’t think Google wants to be a gatekeeper around things like apps. It would prefer not to be. But because the marketplace has become so important, and because Google’s role is so central, it almost has no choice. And when governments start issuing court orders to take down apps, suddenly Google is left with few good options. Either it censors or it picks fights with a government. And even if many of us would probably support and cheer on the latter as a choice, we should be concerned that this is even an issue at all. The solution has to be less reliance on centralized platforms and centralized choke points. Catalonians shouldn’t have to rely on Google to get a simple voting app out to the public. The next big breakthroughs need to be towards getting past such bottlenecks.

Filed Under: bottlenecks, catalonia, democracy, election, independence, play store, points of failure, referendum, spain
Companies: google

Alt-Right Twitter App Developers Sue Google After Gab.Ai App Is Kicked Out Of The Play Store

Legal Issues

from the symbolic-acts-of-litigation dept

Google’s decision to boot a controversial social media app from its Play store has resulted in a lawsuit. And it’s a very strange lawsuit — one that attempts to turn inconsistent moderation efforts into anti-trust allegations against Google.

Some background information is necessary. Some of this can be gleaned from the complaint [PDF], which was put together by Marc Randazza (of First Amendment fame), Ron Coleman (key to the Slants’ Supreme Court trademark win), and Jordan Rushie (who has participated in/fought against copyright trolling efforts). Given the litigation credentials behind the filing, it’s surprising there’s not more to the complaint.

But first, the background:

Gab.ai is the plaintiff in this suit. Gab sprung to life as a Twitter alternative, built in response to a perceived crackdown on alt-right accounts. It’s not as though the accusations are false. Twitter has frequently applied its moderation standards unequally, resulting in bans and shadowbans of alt-right accounts. As the lawsuit points out, Twitter removed alt-right figurehead Milo Yiannopoulos verified checkmark — not because Milo wasn’t who he said he was, but because it apparently didn’t like him or his millions of followers. Six months later, Twitter banned him for good, citing his harassment of actress Leslie Jones.

So, much like Voat became a Reddit for people who thought Reddit censored too much speech, Gab became Twitter for those who felt Twitter censored too much speech. Gab became a mostly-free alternative Twitter, supported by subscribers, and heavily-populated by alt-right Twitter users.

Gab claims to embrace free speech. It engages in very little moderation of users’ content, only culling certain content like child porn, posting of private information, threats, spam, and use of the platform to sell illegal goods. It does not police “hate speech” like Facebook, Twitter, and Google do. It’s the last part that bothers Google. Or at least that’s the stated reason for Google’s ban of Gab from its app store.

But this wasn’t Gab’s first app store ban. Apple blocked it twice, first citing pornographic content as the reason. (Obviously, Twitter allows pornographic posts and yet remains available in the iOS app store…) Gab added porn-blocking by default but was rejected again by Apple, with the company pointing to its rules on hate speech.

Pretty much the same thing happened with Google. Google claimed Gab did not include a “sufficient level of moderation” and did not act to remove content “encouraging violence and hate against groups of people.”

Gab’s response to Google’s ban pointed out it shouldn’t need to police speech that isn’t actually unlawful just to stay in Google’s app store graces. Roughly a month after Google’s decision, Gab has sued. What should probably have been left to public shaming of Google for belatedly distancing itself from Gab’s social media construct has now become a plea for federal intercession.

The lawsuit runs down the history of Gab, as well as Twitter’s shutdown of prominent alt-right/white supremacist accounts. The antitrust action appears to be limited to Google’s partnership with Twitter. Google now has access to Twitter’s “firehose” — all public posts from all Twitter users in real time. This allows Google to return tweets in its search results.

Apparently, this partnership — combined with Google’s domination of Android app services — is evidence of Google’s anticompetitive behavior. The problem with the argument is Google’s unwieldy application of its app store policies doesn’t appear to be Google attempting to eliminate a competitor. Gab doesn’t directly compete with Google+. If anything, it’s a Twitter competitor. Google’s only interest in Twitter is better search results. Kicking Gab out of the app store doesn’t remove its web presence, nor does it prevent Gab users from downloading the app directly from Gab itself.

Much is made of the danger of sideloading apps. And it’s true sideloading poses greater risks to Android users, especially if they’re careless with their sources. While this behavior is somewhat discouraged by the Android system during phone setup, the option to sideload can be turned on and off as needed to allow the installation of apps not included in Google’s Play store.

The lawsuit makes better points about removal from the Play store having deleterious financial effects on Gab, including the loss of ad placements in Google store and targeted ad campaigns utilizing Google’s tools to find new app users.

Included in the filing are several reasons why Gab’s removal is inconsistent with Google’s own app policies. But that doesn’t turn this into an anticompetitive act on Google’s part. The end result may be indistinguishable but there are plenty of innocuous reasons for the app’s removal that have nothing to do with Google killing Gab to protect its partnership with Twitter.

But that’s pretty much what the filing hopes the judge will find. Google’s history of anticompetitive behavior is detailed in the lawsuit, as well as its forays into patent enforcement. Twitter’s inconsistent application of its policies to shut down alt-right accounts is also detailed, providing evidence of nothing, considering Twitter isn’t party to this lawsuit.

Hidden in all of this are two paragraphs on Section 230 which misconstrue protections afforded to entities like Gab.

Even if it were possible for a social media platform to censor “defamatory and mean-spirited content” generated by 250,000 users, a level of content censorship by a social media platform that extended to “defamatory” and “mean-spirited” content place at risk that service’s status as a protected Internet Service Provider, as opposed to a publisher or speaker, under 47 U.S. Code § 230, also known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”).

Unlike an Internet Service Provider, a publisher or speaker is not granted the “safe harbor” benefits of Section 230, and may be held liable for defamation or other torts or other liability arising from content published on a platform it owns or manages.

This assertion greatly misconstrues how Section 230 protections work. This would be worth noting in any case, but especially so since it involves Marc Randazza, who has penned screeds pointing out the opposite: moderation efforts by ISPs do not undermine Section 230 protections.

I do delete comments from time to time. If I notice them and they are “excessively violent” or “harassing” or “otherwise objectionable,” I delete them. Why? First, its my blog, so my fucking rules. You have a right to express yourself, but not necessarily here. Second, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that I can delete one comment and leave 100 filthy, objectionable, harassing, defamatory, nasty, and brutish comments and still not be liable.

Section 230 has been a wonderful thing. It has allowed the Internet to grow, and allowed services like Facebook, Craigslist, Fling.com, Pissedconsumer.com, and any number of other fun websites to exist. It allows me to have a comments section on each post, without worrying about whether I’ll be liable for something posted there. It does foster free speech online. So hooray Section 230.

And the relevant part of Section 230, being brushed aside here to portray Gab’s lack of moderation as somehow being essential to its 230 protections:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected…

Indeed, it’s this very part of CDA 230 that likely will help Google get this lawsuit tossed. Under widely established precedents concerning CDA 230, Google is free to moderate its platform — in this case, the Android Play Store — however it likes, without increasing its own liability. To misrepresent CDA 230 by saying that moderation takes away CDA 230 protections… and then ignoring that those same protections probably prevent this lawsuit is just strange.

This is a bizarre lawsuit, to say the least. It almost looks like a proxy salvo in the ongoing war between the “Alt-Right” and the “Establishment Left,” which is no longer political parties in power but West Coast tech companies shutting down speech they don’t like.

The problem is, Google can legally police speech however it wants. It pays the price in goodwill and public perception, but arbitrary enforcement of app store policies isn’t the same thing as antitrust violations, even if the end result is the death of apps and platforms.

At the end of it, we’re left with a lawsuit that serves mostly to cater to its base: pissed off Gab users. That’s fine, if that’s all you want from your legal representation. Google’s booting of the Gab app isn’t any more correct than this resulting lawsuit. It’s a move that caters to its base: progressives who feel speech they don’t like shouldn’t be allowed anywhere.

Google’s motivations for the shutdown are probably as simplistic as they are inexcusable: Google simply didn’t want to be known as the place where people could go to get the Gab app. Apple’s earlier rejection relegated it to the Android ghetto and Google is engaging in broken windows policing. It’s ugly all over and it does nothing to reconcile diametrically-opposed thinking, but it’s not anticompetitive. It’s just stupid.

Filed Under: alt right, antitrust, apps, cda 230, moderation, play store, section 230
Companies: gab.ai, google, twitter

Google Bans Disconnect.me App From Play Store Based On Vague Guidelines

Failures

from the not-this-again dept

Having had our own run-ins with Google’s opaque (and often hypocritical) decision-making process at times, it’s not surprising (though unfortunate) to hear of yet another case. The folks over at Disconnect.me have been working on tools to give people more control over their own data and how it’s shared. They’re not looking to stop all data sharing, but rather put it back under the control of the individual users, rather than companies in the middle. While this may make some companies nervous, it shouldn’t. A company that is actually providing value and is properly transparent shouldn’t have to worry about such things.

So it’s quite disappointing that Google has chosen to pull Disconnect.me’s new app from the Android store based only on a very vague and broad “prohibition” in its terms of service, saying that you can’t offer an app that “interferes with” other services. The email Google sent doesn’t provide many details, other than saying that the Disconnect.me app “interferes with or accesses another service or product in an unauthorized manner.”

Now, you can understand the basic rationale for why this term is in Google’s rules — the intent there is to block malicious activities. But what’s “malicious” in this context? Disconnect believes Google mistook its app as an adblocker:

But our mobile product (like our Desktop product) is not an adblocker. Instead Disconnect focuses on protecting people from invisible tracking and sources of malware, and all too often these threats come in the form of advertising. In fact, some of the most privacy invasive data collection online happens through ads, which see you even if you don?t see or interact with them. And worse, ad networks (including Google) are increasingly being used by ?advertisers? to spread malware. This increasingly popular tactic, called malvertising, is currently being investigated by the US Senate, and Disconnect Mobile is the first app to directly address it.

The fact is, we are not opposed to advertising and think advertising plays a critical role in the Internet economy. But we are 100% opposed to advertising that invisibly tracks people and compromises their security.

In short, Disconnect.me is working to block evil activities. You’d think that the company with the whole “don’t be evil” slogan would appreciate an app that tries to protect users from evil. But, as was the case when we got threatened with being cut off from ad revenue, it appears this is yet another case where you have a very large company that has put in place “by the book processes” that lead to a lack of common sense being employed. Instead you get checkmarks and bad end results. This all goes back to one of my biggest complaints about Google, going back years, that it continues to be the big white monolith when dealing with all sorts of users, customers and partners. Programs like AdSense and the Android Play Store are massive, and there are, certainly, those who look to abuse those systems. And so it’s no surprise that the company has put in place policies to help try to weed out those abuses — even leading to some false positives. The problem is that the company all too frequently doesn’t have any real second level of review where common sense comes back into play.

Disconnect.me is appealing the decision and seeing if it can get Google to reverse its position — and hopefully that happens. It still seems to me that this is one of Google’s most glaring problems as it has grown, and it’s shown little sign of improving on this front to date. I know that Google is especially sensitive to antitrust concerns being leveled against it, and I’m honestly confused why the company doesn’t view this as a potential concern on that front. When it has the ability to cut people off from areas where it has massive control (including the Android market and the advertising market), it’s only asking for trouble from those where it makes the wrong call.

Filed Under: apps, disconnect, play store, privacy, protection
Companies: disconnect.me, google