[johndhi]

As someone who makes decisions like the one Google made here at work, sorry, dude, but arguing about it publicly isn't going to change much.

Almost certainly Google has received pressure from these countries on this issue and their business there is more important to google than your single app. Google likely isn't being unreasonable - but the governments of these countries are. Sorry.

[fishtoaster]

Historically, it seems like "arguing publicly, getting public outcry, and getting the notice of someone higher up the chain" is pretty much the only way to effectively appeal these sorts of decisions at Google.

I don't know if it'll work in this case, since google's argument ("this contains a slot simulator and some countries don't like that") isn't too egregious, but I can't really fault the dev. When the faceless review process fails, this sort of public appeal has worked before.

[Paul-Craft]

> Historically, it seems like "arguing publicly, getting public outcry, and getting the notice of someone higher up the chain" is pretty much the only way to effectively appeal these sorts of decisions at Google.

Not just Google. It seems like a lot of large corporations effectively outsource their customer service to (the platform formerly known as) Twitter and such. Complaining on social media gets results, even after one has been stonewalled by official channels.

And, even if it fails, you can frequently generate a lot of buzz by complaining loudly on social media. How many people reading this do you think had never heard of this game before just now?

[davely]

I’m about to go through the same thing myself due to my Facebook Marketplace account getting banned for… no idea? Some sort of automated moderation kerfuffle.

No matter how many times I click “request a review of this decision” through their customer service portal, my appeal is automatically denied.

When there’s no way to get customer support from a company, it’s the only other thing left to do.

[paulddraper]

> arguing about it publicly isn't going to change much

Okay fair enough. What is going to change much?

[cmdli]

Probably changing the laws in those countries, which only the citizens of those countries can really do. Google isn't the cause here, just the middleman.

[TulliusCicero]

And in many cases, they can't either, if the country isn't democratic.

[mcpackieh]

Even if those countries were democratic, is there any reason to think they would choose to legalize simulated gambling?

[TulliusCicero]

I looked at the list more closely and lol, what is South Korea doing on there? Yeah, I could see South Korea legalizing it.

The others...unlikely, to be sure. But you never know, I guess.

[93po]

SK has a lot of restrictions on gaming in general and it might be for non-gambling simulation reasons

[sneak]

This, I believe, is called the "just following orders defense". It was attempted most famously in Nürnberg in '46.

It didn't work then, and it shouldn't work now.

See also: Project Dragonfly

[graypegg]

Please remember the context here, we’re talking about a game on the App Store that has a slot machine mechanic.

Many places have similar small variances in obscenity they allow to be published. Your country might forbid nudity on TV, or disallow gambling businesses in public spaces.

I’d say WW2 featured significantly more serious issues.

[sneak]

We're talking about mass censorship of artistic output for which there is widespread international consensus (basically all of the global west) around being both harmless and protected. The app in question very clearly does not allow gambling! The fact that the app depicts a slot machine is a red herring.

Such censorship is being carried out against millions of humans, by one of the few organizations on the planet large enough and resourced enough to take principled stands against same.

Google actually left China for this reason specifically. The correct answer by the same organization in question is not without precedent.

This is not a small transgression on Google's part.

[graypegg]

Yeah I’m sorry, even as a person living in the western world, I would not want to live in a world with a defined “morally correct” group of decision makers. Countries vary. Cultures vary. It really is OK.

You can make the argument that big tech is already that, but clearly they respect local laws.

You were comparing this to the Nuremberg trials. That’s mostly where my disagreement lies. Beyond over-exaggerated.

[verve_rat]

Really? Country X doesn't like simulated gambling mechanics, Google won't release game in country X therefore Google are Nazis committing war crimes?

[rvnx]

Somehow, you made me wonder what phone Hitler would use, if it's Android or iOS. And what social network app he would use.

But one thing for sure, he wouldn't have time to play slots machines.

[verve_rat]

Surely it would be some sort of Volksmobil? The question is: how would it snitch on you?

[graypegg]

There’s a sketch idea for the show Horrible Histories maybe, heheheh

[graypegg]

I guess on the other side of the argument: why does a game developer in one country feel obliged to change the content standard set by another country? It’s a pretty minor variance all things considered. Maybe you just can’t “change much” here?

(Also: I don’t agree with the obviously silly content rules.)

[stronglikedan]

The only answer is, likely nothing. There's likely nothing you or anyone else can do to get the governments of those countries to change anything about the way they govern. It's not a tree worth barking up.

[rvnx]

Well, there is a solution, but it's unpopular, so it may negatively impact company valuation.

Lobbying government of US, to send them "democracy".

Or hire PMCs (Alphabet has 113B USD in cash).

Or push news and content that is against the local government (but this is half-joke).

So it's possible if you really want.

[tomjen3]

Anti trust law suit and PR campaign against Google.

Problem is that it likely cost way more than he can afford.

Anything else effective is illegal.

[tspike]

Why is there not even lip service paid to consistent enforcement?

[janoc]

Because they enforce when someone complains. They aren't going to proactively ban stuff unless they really have to (e.g. something that is very obviously illegal/scam/etc.)

So if nobody complained about the other apps, they didn't get banned. It is that easy.

That someone else does something that violates those policies/laws too doesn't mean that you get a free pass, unfortunately.

[tspike]

I'd buy that if the app stores weren't proactively rejecting apps for the same reasons they fail to enforce on others.

[graypegg]

Consistant enforcement means “local laws are consistently applied”. There isn’t one globally recognized list of content moderation standards.

[TulliusCicero]

Making it consistent across different national laws means ignoring those laws.

Does anyone think Google should just ignore national laws as a general policy?

[mrguyorama]

Only the ones they don't like.

[Spivak]

Because running a global service in multiple sovereign jurisdictions makes it impossible to have consistent enforcement. Would you have it so only the laws of the country of the company's HQ matters?

If you mean why isn't Google bringing the banhammer down on every app that fails to meet the criteria isn't that what you want? Allow as much as possible until a government complains?

[ceph_]

It's a slot machine game. Seems like it's being enforced properly in this scenario.