{"id":18665,"date":"2017-08-18T14:19:13","date_gmt":"2017-08-18T18:19:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=18665"},"modified":"2017-08-28T15:54:25","modified_gmt":"2017-08-28T19:54:25","slug":"gab-app-rejected-by-google-and-apple","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2017\/08\/18\/gab-app-rejected-by-google-and-apple\/","title":{"rendered":"Gab App Rejected by Google (and Apple)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Timothy B. Lee<\/a>:<\/p>\n

On Thursday, Gab said<\/a> that Google had banned its Android app from the Google Play Store for violating Google’s ban on hate speech.<\/p>

Google’s e-mail doesn’t explain how Gab violated Google’s rules, and the company’s policy on the topic<\/a> isn’t very specific. It says only that “We don’t allow apps that advocate against groups of people based on their race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, nationality, veteran status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”<\/p>

[…]<\/p>

Google is following in Apple’s footsteps here. Apple has long had more restrictive app store policies, and it originally rejected the Gab app<\/a> for allowing pornographic content to be posted on the service—despite the fact that hardcore pornography is readily available on Twitter. In a second rejection, Apple faulted the app<\/a> for containing content that was “defamatory or mean-spirited”—Apple’s version of the hate speech rule.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

My understanding is that Gab is a social network\/platform, with all the content\/speech\/advocacy generated by users. So these rejections don’t make much sense to me. I don’t think an app developer should be held responsible for the content of messages that the app’s users send to one another.<\/p>\n

And look at the larger context of apps that are approved. Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc. have policies<\/em> to restrict certain kinds of content, but in practice<\/em> all manner of violations and abuse still occur. Those apps are not in any danger of being rejected. How are they different from Gab, or Micro.blog, other than being too big to ban?<\/p>\n

There are also Web browser, e-mail, RSS, and podcast apps that provide access to totally unfiltered content—including from Gab’s site. And there are secure messaging apps that only transmit opaque encrypted content.<\/p>\n

Banning apps based on user content seems to only inconvenience users without really protecting them, anyway.<\/p>\n\n

Update (2017-08-18): Google clarified<\/a>:<\/p>\n

In an email to Ars, Google explained its decision to remove Gab from the Play Store: “In order to be on the Play Store, social networking apps need to demonstrate a sufficient level of moderation, including for content that encourages violence and advocates hate against groups of people. This is a long-standing rule and clearly stated in our developer policies.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Apple’s guidelines<\/a> say:<\/p>

Apps with user-generated content present particular challenges, ranging from intellectual property infringement to anonymous bullying. To prevent abuse, apps with user-generated content or social networking services must include:<\/p>