Your smartphone, their rules: App stores enable corporate-government censorship

It's ok when users have choice. Those who don't like HN moderation can hang out somewhere else (and many do).

Not using app stores isn't an option for most users, especially on iOS.

Censorship by a website moderator means you need to move to another website to express your ideas. Censorship by the government means you need to move to another country.

Censorship on an app hosting page means you need to host your app somewhere else. Censorship on the only app hosting page allowed means you can't host your app at all.

Moderation is okay when it properly adjusts signal-to-noise ratio of discussion.

Censorship is about suppressing opinions which fall out of Overton's window, which is not okay, as all it does is to enforce status quo.

There was a good blogpost by Ex-reddit engineers about it where the idea was to treat it as signal which you cannot understand, and your core purpose as moderation(from automated PoV) is to adjust the signal to noise ratio without being able to comprehend/read the underlying data.

A bit hypocritical of them, looking at how reddit's moderation works.

Frankly i'm also against private censorship in case of social media - as it is basically outsourced government censorship.

I think it's inversely correlated with power, influence and reach. HN and Reddit don't have guns, can't throw you in prison, and there are lots of social medias to choose from, so a fair bit of censorship can be tolerated. Apple can't deport you, but you also don't have a lot of other choices, very low tolerance for censorship. The Government can really ruin your life if you get on the wrong side and your options for changing it or escaping it are pretty limited, we should demand the highest levels of transparency. Sure, some secrecy around military and intelligence for a little while, but we should eventually know what they decided and why.

Whenever you enter a community, you implicitly agree to a small contract with the community. If I enter a running community, it's assumed that I'm not there to talk about cooking pasta, if I sign up to a book club, people will surely get tired of me if I don't stop yapping about music.

There's of course leeway around this, but communities, generally, have purpose, implicit (built by the community) and explicit (what it says on the sign).

We are okay with censorship when it serves to that purpose. We like it when HNs and Reddit delete viagra ads in comments. We don't like it when it runs contrary to or subverts the purpose of the communities. The userbase here would have gotten pretty mad if the threads about Cloudflare yesterday were deleted, as they evidently are of interest regarding current tech, and they would also have been pretty mad if anyone criticizing Cloudflare was banned, as we are supposed to be able to freely comment on such matters.

This is much more common on Reddit, where mods (and users!) will often silence stuff they don't like, even if relevant. This creates conflict regarding the two types of purpose mentioned before.

Now, countries should have as much censorship as they want, this is already patent in hate speech laws around the globe, before anyone brings up the 1st, do note that the US could also (at least in theory) change the constitution if the people so wished. Extreme caution should be taken in this regard though as one does not simply "stop being member of a country".

One answer is client-side based moderaton social networks.

If I want to read moderated comments I should be allowed to. Or in the same way I could choose to let others block things for me.

But is HN the only forum for tech discussions available to you?

The whole point is that both phone platforms are required to participate in modern life. Imagine if your water or electricity company decides not to supply your house. There is a reason such fundamental services are made into universal rights and do not follow the usual competition rules.

Apple/Google can’t be both the store, the device and the OS.

The mods on HN don't have police forces and standing armies with guns.

I think the key here is choice.

Are there other sites where you can discuss the things you use Hacker News for, without much of a loss? Then it's probably moderation.

Is this the only forum that matters with respect to a certain topic? Then it's probably censorhip.

For example, if a private company controls the de-facto subreddit for a topic or product and uses that to control the narrative then it's more like censorship than moderation.

Also, it sounds like you think it's black-and-white but it's much more gray than that and something one might call moderation someone else might call censorship, and there might not be a clear-cut answer.

This is kind of a "why do we have law at all" level conversation.

If it's not done on the basis of jurisdiction, then laws about what constitutes illegal content in Germany or China or United States applies to everyone.

Taking the stance of "we're not going to follow any laws and publish everything" puts the companies in very difficult places in those countries as publishers of the content.

They only do this now because Trump is president. It's very dishonest that they didn't fight for it before. ACLU etc are pro-censorship, they also want to censor other viewpoints, don't be fooled. They are screaming now because they are the ones targeted. I won't fall for it.

>While censorship is one thing, they forgot another overlooked ability of these app stores: pushing unwanted apps/services to our personal devices without our knowledge

When was the last time the play store or app store pushed apps "without our knowledge"? I've only heard of it done by shady third party bloatware that OEMs bundle with the OS. The actual issue is a system that can perform OTA updates, not app stores themselves.

The web is much safer than the App and Play Store while been also absurdly bigger.

I prefer web versions because I trust the browser sandbox more than I trust the developers at Super Store 01.

There's also PWA, which while not perfect, is supported on iOS.

The problem is that the Web has turned into ChromeOS Platform, the only reason it hasn't yet is iDevices and Safari.

Also Web apps are basically the 21st century version of timesharing like in the good old days, where we had one server for everyone.

Even better for censorship purposes.

I also think that it sends the right signal in terms of "Hey, this really doesn't need to be an app". I don't need an app for my newspaper, I need a shortcut/bookmark to its web page.

And once you start thinking about it, the same thing goes for a surprisingly large amount of apps.

I feel like in the coming years the facade big A and big G put up in order to push everyone into their distinctive walled garden of apps will crumble in public opinion.

It never was "yeah, it needs to be an app because the web platform doesn't have an API standard for it", geez, apple even forced a single web engine. They could have easily allowed access to their APIs on the browser. It just never was in their corporate interest to do so.

Okay, this devolved into an anti corporate rant without it being my intention to... So, go web!

> Using web versions, not apps, is important because companies keep user device statistics and if enough people insist in using web versions, the the web will continue to be at least partially supported by big tech.

It's also frequently just better. If I'm looking for hotels, flights, apartments, restaurants, hiking trails, ect., doing so in a browser allows me to keep dozens of comparable offers open for direct comparison - just by jumping between browser tabs.

Doing the same in the app means endlessly navigating between offers, favorites, and new searches. It's often very obvious that the app was built explicitly to be less powerful.

> I can’t say for sure that preferring web versions of services helps with censorship

The linked article isn't enough to convince you? Look up Gab or Parler. (Yes, I find most of the speech there reprehensible. No, I don't think they should be denied the right to publish and distribute an app.)

Using a social media app instead of a website, as most people do, means that everything you are seeing has essentially been pre-approved by Apple and Google.

If the tide swings even a little further to the right on X, expect the X app to be banned as well. I was secretly hoping that it would be banned when Musk took over just to remind the right of why centralized app stores are a terrible idea. But with ICEBlock the left has finally been alerted to that fact as well, which might be even more beneficial to the cause of software freedom in the long run, since the left is generally less afraid of the proper solution to this problem, regulation.

In the meantime, keep using web apps instead of native apps.

Glad to see I'm not alone. I never install apps unless there's no other way, and often remove them as soon as possible. My home screen is a collection of web shortcuts. Amazon, YouTube, X, bank, all web links. But I also use LineageOS with MicroG.

I've been asked why, and it's not really fear of surveillance (although I'm not a fan of it) or making a difference or whatever, just because it's one of the few ways I'm able to give the finger. Sure, noone will notice but it makes me feel better :)

I'm curious that tech friends would push back on this. I'd expect them to be the ones to agree with the idea, oddly.

The standard layman, on the other hand, wants to be able to trust that they can trust people.

I just wish a culture of quality would become the rule and not the exception in web app development. It's a far more frequent thing for web apps to stutter and make my phone hot (or on a computer, keep an entire core pegged doing nothing) than it is for native apps to do the same. This experience is universal between browsers and platforms, too; I've observed it on Chrome under Android and Edge on Windows for example.

Of course there are plenty of crappy native apps too, but the incidence and severity is comparatively lower and in many cases, there are well-behaved "handcrafted" small dev alternatives to crappy native apps which are much less common (or at least, more difficult to find) on the web.

I also avoid apps. I tell everyone that I meet to avoid apps because the general population is going to drive us right into a future where there are no more web-based options and almost everything must be accessed through a separate app. People are simply not aware of what they're giving up by using apps that would work perfectly fine as websites.

> Using web versions

ahem, heard of cloudflare? web hosters and developers are voluntarily centralizing themselves.

I'm disappointed by the EFF not mentioning PWAs and web apps. Fighting censorship means fighting for those too. Platform owners will always have more direct control over sideloading.

bingo!! web apps solve most of these issues.

let's say for the ICEblock or whatever - pull up a map pin (geotag), that can be done in a web app.

the things most people advocate apps for e.g notifications are nuisances that some of us permanently turned off. My phone is always on do not disturb, I get 0 notifications. The only time I prefer notifications is something actionable - I pay online then the bank says open app to approve in-app notification (pop up) not those things (notifications) that just come to your phone asynchronously and bother you.

I have a smartwatch (if at all) garmin it's not hooked up to my phone for notifications.

unless you're making games / hell now games can leverage webgpu - no reason to make native apps at all for 96% of things. just make a web app - service workers enable offline access for some things.

- my simple take -> do what the porno companies do in regards to tech. simple & effective. but please don't copy their ads thing.

It's even better to avoid the internet entirely. It's purely a liability at this point.

I subscribe to the NYT and find it so irritating that they regularly prompt me to download their app from safari on ios I may cancel. I do not want their app ever.

I've been a web/ux guy for a long time now and I don't think I've ever used a single mobile app/site that is better than a proper full screen piece of software. It's always been a compromise no matter how hard myself or my designers try. Maybe quick photo/video edits but that's less because they're good or they have quality user experiences but more because its often overkill to pop open Photoshop just to cut out a dog pooping in the background or whatever. Most times I feel like mobile devs (myself included) don't even utilize the various unique features mobile devices do have.

I'm also old, cranky and turning into a crusty CLI guy as I get even older and crankier. If you kids need more than a TUI, get off my lawn!

You should install F-Droid. lmoat every app on there is completely ethical, and there are many (not enough but many).

Many of the ones that require a server side connect to your self hosted server instead of some central server on the cloud, which is a reason they will never get popular, but sounds perfect for you. There are some that use central servers, and this fact will be clearly stated in the antifeatures section. Many other F-Droid apps just work offline. And hardly any have ads.

Personally I generally prefer the UX of apps for software that I trust, ie, open source software downloaded via F-Droid. I feel the same with native desktop clients. For untrusted software, web apps are the way to go.

Yep. Not using apps and avoiding the cloud at all costs (e.g. not backing up everything to iCloud, turning off one drive) are litmus tests for having a clue. Using Bluetooth is almost the same but it’s hard to get by without it nowadays. Same for connecting your tv to the internet.

It's possible to criticize something without having the law "on your side". The OP characterizes Apple's action as "unacceptable, censorious overreach", but doesn't claim it was illegal. Once upon a time, slavery was illegal, but it would be daft to oppose emancipation on the basis of "How about slaves sue DOJ and/or slave owners if the law is on their side?".

Did you miss the Epic lawsuit?

Are you anti handheld radio?

Yes, that's the point of freedom. People can carry devices that do things. If they break the law, that's another question, but everyone should be allowed to have computers that communicate that they can control

You are so brainwashed by app stores' talking points that you don't realize you are describing computers.

Just let users install whatever they want. Maybe add a verification process (a-la app verification for Mac) if users want to be restricted to verified apps. Show a "this is from an unverified developer" messages if the app comes from an unverified developer (is not signed).

There's no need to draw lines. Leave that to painters and architects.

Facts that I find myself in-agreement with:

1. A world where every human's smartphone is an open-field install-anything no-controls-beyond-antivirus device similar to your desktop PC would be a functionally and utilitarian-ly worse world than the one we live in today where these devices for most people exhibit strong, centralized, corporatist control.

2. There are use-cases these devices are now being adopted for that open-field install-anything desktop PCs have never, even to this day, adopted. You cannot install your drivers license and passport into your desktop PC, nor can you tap-to-pay. Its likely many of these use-cases needed the level of hyper-security Apple and Google are pushing toward in order to digitize these use-cases, validly or not.

3. Apple's extreme of restricting the installation of anything outside of the App Store (and, for that matter, even severely restricting the things you can distribute through the app store for no reason, such as until recently alternate payment providers) is a step too far. As you say, the opposite extreme is bad, but that doesn't mean Apple's extreme is good.

4. There's a middleground we need to find, and by the way, I don't think Android strikes the middleground very well today. A couple examples of things that would move in a more positive direction toward this middleground: (a.) I think phones should be able to be purchased from the factory immutably with the quality of requiring binaries to be signed by Apple/Google. Google should sell Pixels that are hyper-locked down similar to the iPhone and that characteristic can never change about them; its etched into the security coprocessor itself. Conversely, maybe if I have an Apple developer account, I should be able to buy an iPhone that allows me to install binaries from any source. (b.) Apple should have an "App Store Extended" backend capability where developers still distribute their apps through the App Store, all the same security scanning happens, but the developer has to handle their own marketing via the web; the app never appears in the App Store App itself. In exchange, their distribution rules are more relaxed (alternate payment processors, applets, sensitive content, etc).

I don't get your point. This article is about control of the high level software running on your phone, not the firmware controlling your phone's radios. Even if an app store allowed any software without filter, this would not allow anyone to transmit "arbitrary radio signals". The much lower level firmware ensures that the radio communicates at proper power and protocol.

The phone hardware is not capable of arbitrary radio signals anyway. People can buy software defined radios off the shelf, but people generally don't abuse this because a) there really isn't any motivation for them to and b) they would quickly land in really hot water with the FCC.

> Once you accept that would be ridiculous

No, I don’t think I will.

> a free for all where millions of idiots are carrying devices where they can install and run anything on a device where arbitrary radio signals can be transmitted and received at will under software control

As a matter of fact, I can consider that opposite extreme https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG3uea-Hvy4

The same can be done with a laptop, and millions of idiots carry those around.

It is their device after all.

Yes, keep "all those potential idiots" in check, except the rich and the powerful.

How about no?

Apple / Google did not but should sue the Gov't for this abuse. Perhaps it could be more popularized, to sway Goo-Apple's mind and take the expensive plunge.

Glad the ACLU is starting to talk about it, at the least.

there are plenty of "real" open source mobile OSes. the issue is third party apps. if Debian couldn't run NGINX, Apache, Docker, Kubernetes, etc, it wouldn't matter how mature or solid the OS is, because 90% of software people want to run on a server doesn't work.

if FAANG apps and banking apps don't run on a mobile OS it will never be viable. the government, these big companies, and the device manufacturers all have a vested interest in making sure it never happens.

Biggest problem is banking apps.

I happened to like when Apple thumbed their nose at the government about the san Bernardino shooter

  Apple has since confirmed in a statement provided to Ars that the US federal government “prohibited” the company “from sharing any information,” but now that Wyden has outed the feds, Apple has updated its transparency reporting and will “detail these kinds of requests” in a separate section on push notifications in its next report.

Well, you're right that this isn't journalism per se. But it's not trying to be, so your comment is a bit weird. Nobody is confusing the ACLU with CNN.

At least on iOS, Apple controls the singular web browser implementation. If they wanted to, they definitely could do a thing about any site. The same arguments for policing their App Store would apply to the open internet too, it's scary and dangerous!

Sure they can. Mobile users have no path of recourse if Apple updates WebKit to break or blacklist the site. There is no working alternative on iPhone or iPad.

Maybe the people advocating for browser diversity on iOS were onto something...

Some types of censorship are popular and voters in democracies vote for polticians who pass and enforce such laws. A company that is censoring you because they are legally obligated to is still censoring you.