Google has publicly announced that it has reinstated the Bitcoin Blast game app.
On January 27th, the creators of the app, Bling, posted on their Twitter profile the news that the previous week the Bitcoin Blast Android app had been removed from the Google Play Store without notice, despite being the first in the ranking among the Apps offering bitcoin rewards, with almost 1.4 million users and over 20,000 votes.
Bling pointed out that the reason for the ban was due to an alleged “shady behavior”, even though they were very careful to respect the rules and regulations of the Google Play Store.
The answer from the official Google Play Apps & Games profile arrived a couple of days later on Twitter, saying that they had received Bling’s report and forwarded it to the relevant team for further investigation, asking for patience while the matter was being examined.
Then came the public announcement of the App’s reinstatement.
Google Play Apps & Games wrote:
“Hi there, thanks for your patience. We’re happy to inform you that the appeal has been granted. Your app will be available on the Play Store again once you resubmit it”.
This is not the first time something like this has happened, and many believe it could occur again.
What is shocking, however, is the fact that these removals can take place without any prior notice, and without any real motivation, but only on the basis of mere suspicion and in an automated manner.
Moreover, in December something similar happened on YouTube, which is owned by Google, and this would seem to indicate that the company has some problems with Bitcoin or the crypto world in general.
In the end, however, these issues were eventually resolved and Google admitted that it had made a mistake, so in theory, the company should have no problems with cryptocurrencies, or the tools that use and promote them.
So, if on the one hand, these are essentially Google’s mistakes, and on the other, the company itself is not openly against cryptocurrencies, one could expect a less criminalizing attitude on the part of the company, which, while having to protect users from unavoidable scams, should not convey a negative perception of these innovations, regarding them a priori as being suspected of shady behaviour.
It is curious to note that Google’s mistakes are at the expense of organizations, companies or technologies that ultimately turn out to be innocent, except for experimenting with new technological paths, something Google itself did at the end of the last century.
