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

Moderation vs. Censorship

• Many distinguish “moderation” (spam/abuse control, improving signal-to-noise) from “censorship” (suppressing legal viewpoints outside the Overton window).
• A key criterion raised: user choice. If there are many viable alternative communities (HN, Reddit, websites), platform rules feel like moderation. When one or two platforms effectively control access (iOS/Android app stores), the same behavior feels like censorship.
• Others argue any selective silencing is inherently corrosive, while some counter that without moderation conversations collapse into spam and “megaphones.”
• Proposals include “silo”/federated models and client-side/community filters where users, not central platforms, decide what to hide—subject only to actual law (e.g., CSAM).

Power of App Store Duopoly

• Several compare Apple/Google to utilities: phones and their app stores are now required for “modern life,” so “if you don’t like it, leave” is seen as unrealistic.
• Others reply that users voluntarily chose these ecosystems and that companies should be allowed to define “their platform, their rules,” absent clear illegality.
• Critics call it a de facto duopoly: similar policies, same fees, little serious competition. Structural factors (modem certification, payments, government trust, long lead times to build an OS) reinforce this.
• Many support regulation to curb anti-competitive behavior and prevent app stores from being the single chokepoint for legal speech (examples cited include ICEBlock, Gab, Parler, X).

Web, PWAs, and Avoiding Apps

• A large subthread advocates using the web (and PWAs) to bypass app-store censorship and tracking, and to keep the open web economically relevant.
• Benefits noted: tabs, deep linking, copy/search, ad-blocking, easier comparison shopping, and less gatekeeper control. Many avoid native apps unless strictly necessary.
• Disputes arise over safety: some say the web is “much safer” because there’s no central portal pushing malicious content; others argue lack of centralized moderation makes it less safe.
• PWAs are seen as a partial solution but hampered: claims that Apple deliberately cripples PWA capabilities; Android ties full PWA integration to Google Play/Chrome. Performance and UX quality of web apps are also frequent complaints.

Government, Law, and Civil Liberties Groups

• Some see platform censorship as “outsourced government censorship,” with laws nudging platforms to over-remove content, entrenching incumbents.
• Others note companies must follow local law; if voters support speech restrictions, resulting platform censorship is still censorship, just legalized.
• There is skepticism about civil-liberties organizations only objecting when their preferred political side is harmed; others are simply glad to see public pressure on Apple/Google at all.

Ownership, Open OSes, and Opaque Enforcement

• Calls for a Debian-like FLOSS smartphone OS stress governance and user control, but commenters note it’s doomed without banking/FAANG app support and with locked-down basebands.
• One view: you never truly “own” a smartphone; telecom and regulatory constraints prevent full control.
• App store review processes are described as opaque and arbitrary, with examples of politically sensitive apps being banned without meaningful appeal, reinforcing fears of quiet, ideologically driven censorship.