45 ms·
Apple has threatened to ban Parler from the App Store
- maa5444 6y agonaxi initiative
- grillvogel 6y agohardcore leftists weren't using twitter and other platforms to incite violence?
- thepangolino 6y agoAlways have been. Still are.
- alacombe 6y agoIt's not "violence", it's "social justice".
- NoSorryCannot 6y agoIt's comforting to see the usual dishonest whataboutism even after the capitol has been stormed. Both sides!
- CameronNemo 6y agoThe difference is how the platform responds. Parler tolerates it, while Twitter and Facebook typically remove such content. Broad strokes, but those are the ones that get seen right?
- Darmody 6y agoBut all the calls for violence that the left made are still there. Even from elected officials and journalists who encouraged those who were acting violently. There's a double standard and it shouldn't be that hard to condemn violence no matter what side it comes from.
- TigeriusKirk 6y agoIt seems American society is determined to make every possible mistake.
- skarz 6y ago“Just create your own twitter” they say when you complain about censorship
- soupson 6y agoMastodon exists.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoAnd the core network is even more aggressive in censorship (err, defederation) than the tech giants.
- soupson 6y agoAnd that's fine! It doesn't depend on that core network. Make your own. That's what open source is for!
- orblivion 6y agoI always thought it was the perfect solution, if by accident. The network is segmented, and people can connect to who they tolerate. It avoids censorship but still lets people curate their own experience. Win/win. Gab used to be federated through to Mastodon (not directly of course, but via a hop or two). For some reason they stopped, but there are other "non-conforming" Mastodon instances out there.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoI thought so too, until I saw how this works from inside. Segmented networks sound fine in principle, but there's a pathological behavior happening: there's a group of people around the core instances that like to take offense over things, who then try to pressure the administrator of that person's instance to ban that person, or else they'll defederate the whole instance. The source of offense may be some wrongthing the person posted, or reposted from another instance, or any "known association", etc. Also defederation because of incompatible codes of conduct is a thing, and as you expect, this creates a pressure towards CoC extremism. The Gab thing was funny to watch, lots of people behaving as if that service was a literal existential threat to Fediverse, and banning - or advocating to ban - anything related to it up to two degrees of separation. It also revealed an interesting pattern - Mastodon itself may be decentralized and instances are theoretically independent, but there for sure is a community of Fediverse people that's pretty hiveminded. And left-leaning. Gab definitely wasn't welcome, and wouldn't be able to benefit much from federating through Mastodon, even if technically nobody could stop them. (To be clear: I don't like Gab, never interacted with it, and I don't particularly care about it. It was just weird to see the degree of moral panic on Mastodon happening the moment they said they are considering joining the network.) Mastodon is therefore an interesting experiment in how the ideal of distributed web - of virtual archipelago[0] - falls to realpolitik. Freedom of curation is limited by your ability to deal with threats of defederation. In this sense, when you're switching from Twitter to Mastodon, you're switching from a stable tyranny to highly volatile sorta-democracy. Pick your poison, I guess. I stick to Mastodon, and try not to give the admin a reason to get me banned for going against the party line. -- [0] - https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/07/archipelago-and-atomic-communitarianism/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/07/archipelago-and-atomic...
- meekmockmook 6y agoParler, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook were definitely used to storm Congress. Snapchat, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter and Facebook also were definitely used to burn down parts of Minneapolis, Chicago, and LA. Massive Big Tech conglomerates must be busted through antitrust enforcement and Section 230 must be updated to ban predatory algorithms which have inflamed 7 years of sectarian chaos. It's not a free speech issue: It's about Too Big To Fail.
- dvdhnt 6y ago> Snapchat, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter and Facebook also were definitely used to burn down parts of Minneapolis, Chicago, and LA. Source? Edit: lol at the downvotes. Anytime someone talks about something obvious regarding society/wealth inequality, all the wannabe Elon Musks come out to demand sources. But infringe on their dear property rights or otherwise critique the current economic system, and oh boy, they have that downvote finger ready. Cheers.
- zionic 6y agoAre you unironically contesting that popular social media was used to organize riots and massive property damage last summer?
- dvdhnt 6y ago> Are you unironically contesting that popular social media was used to organize No, everything must be organized, I get that. > riots and massive property damage last summer? I'm asking for a source regarding the accusation that they were used to "burn down parts of Minneapolis, Chicago, and LA" And before you ask, yeah, I take issue with the idea of most of those events being called "riots" - they were almost entirely peaceful protests, with unarmed protesters, that were met by militarized police forces and unnamed federal agents. Furthermore, I take issue with the emphasis on "property damage" as property is fairly meaningless when you fear for your live or live paycheck-to-paycheck. America has an unhealthy obsession with "property damage" as if it should be the driver for any sort of discussion on societal issues, when in fact, it should not be.
- randomfool 6y agoKudos to Apple for taking action: https://www.inputmag.com/culture/exclusive-email-from-apple-tells-parler-it-has-24-hours-to-clean-house-or-be-removed https://www.inputmag.com/culture/exclusive-email-from-apple-...
- mmastrac 6y agoThank fucking god. These tech companies were complicit in an incompetent but serious insurrection attempt. Better late than never, but they must have known things were going to get bad. The right and the associated white supremists have far too much freedom to spread disinformation, racism and hatred. I'm sure we'll see free speech absolutists in arms about this, but today is a good day for democracy.
- dzeanah 6y agoI really hope this is sarcasm.
- ohgodplsno 6y agoParler is incapable and unwilling to moderate nazis, white supremacists and terrorists. Worse, they thrive on those users. First they came for the nazis, and I didn't say anything because, well, fuck nazis. Then end.
- throwaway3699 6y agoIf a society can't cope with people converting to Nazism because they read something on Facebook, I don't believe it's worthy of continuing.
- Eiriksmal 6y agoI've often thought about this same point. Isn't interesting that last week, an article summarizing the soft sciences' best attempt at determining whether allowing children to play violent video games makes them actually violent later in life was so well received? No one on Hacker News was surprised that shooting people in video games does not correlate to shooting people in real life. But if someone is permitted to watch Islamic terrorist propaganda, or read white supremacist's flawed logical arguments, that's somehow guaranteed to convert some percentage of people to those ideologies; therefore they should be banned from all platforms.
- nicbou 6y agoSomeone brought an interesting perspective in another thread and I can't shake it off. The other side keeps deplatforming them. Their legal cases are rejected. The mainstream media refuses to take them seriously. We're not even listening to them, because it's science and they're *ists if they disagree. We're not debating anymore. We just assume we're right. We are slowly squeezing a significant segment of the population out of public debate, and they are powerless to stop it. Is it surprising that they are furious about it, and explode in unpredictable ways? Wouldn't you do the same? E: I accidentally hit submit halfway through my argument. You might be replying to a really different comment
- mmastrac 6y agoThey are spewing a constant stream of hatred and disinformation. Nothing of value was lost here.
- deelowe 6y agoHere's a direct quote from someone I'm close to: "I don't agree at all with those people storming the capital. This does not represent who we are, but what do you expect when the media claims not a single voter fraud case was won in court when in fact almost all of them never went to trial? They are lying." Nearly half the nation voted for Trump. I don't believe half the nation is full of hatred and disinformation. No more so do I feel people burning businesses and shooting cops represent the BLM movement. These people protesting. BLM, Occupy Wallstreet, Tea Party, Voter Fraud. At a certain level, they are all protesting the same thing. They are protesting the system. Cops, Bankers, Regulators, Politicians. The wealth gap is widening and people are getting frustrated. Unfortunately people are easily misled and are resorting to group think instead of recognizing the real problem. I'm not a republican, but does anyone not feel just a little uncomfortable that the less worse option this year was a career politician with his own sorted history and snake oil salesman smile? Come on man.
- detaro 6y agoIf your lawsuit doesn't even go to trial (for a variety of reasons), you clearly haven't won it. Unless you win a lawsuit, "haven't won any of their lawsuits" is 100% true. And the media did report on sme of the lawsuits being thrown out, but I'm sure they would have found something wrong with reporting that too. Or should the courts just suddenly start entertaining invalid lawsuits just so Trump lawyers don't look as incompetent? (And from reading up a bit, multiple courts have judged on merit and found that the claimants didn't provide compelling evidence for their claims)
- mmastrac 6y agoReposting my comment from a related story. Thank fucking god. These tech companies were complicit in an incompetent but serious insurrection attempt. Better late than never, but they must have known things were going to get bad. The right and the associated white supremists have far too much freedom to spread disinformation, racism and hatred. I'm sure we'll see free speech absolutists in arms about this, but today is a good day for democracy.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- grillvogel 6y agowhat about all the calls for destruction and support of violent "protests" over the past year from the other side, or does that not count because it is the side you agree with?
- dang 6y agoPlease don't copy-paste comments. It lowers signal/noise ratio and makes merging threads a pain. (I'm just about to merge the two threads in question.) If you or anyone notices a duplicate discussion going on, letting us know at hn@ycombinator.com is super helpful. If you want to refer to something you posted elsewhere, please use a link.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- newfeatureok 6y agoI'm honestly curious - where is the line drawn between a service being used to do "questionable" things and it being removed? We can all agree, for example, that the internet at large enables many bad things, but I doubt any of us would ban the internet (though in other countries this happens). What about reddit? A specific subreddit? A specific post? A specific user? A specific post by a specific user at a specific time? Obviously Reddit isn't going to be banned, but is the mere existence of moderation enough? Or is it the outcome of the moderation, aka, certain content never being present, that is what's desired? I'm curious how nuanced these things are for Apple and other companies. Is there some sort of algorithm that says: if this app has a news feed, if X% of items in the newsfeed in a 24hr period are objectionable then it will be banned? Or perhaps Y number of days that fulfill the previous criteria before it is banned?
- alacombe 6y ago> I'm honestly curious - where is the line drawn between a service being used to do "questionable" things and it being removed? Whether or not it's "right leaning".
- Laarlf 6y agoI am not sure if you are being sarcastic but i feel this comment.
- hooande 6y agoParler is (or was) the #1 downloaded app on the App Store, according to some metrics. You don't need an algorithm to see that. It's a PR nightmare, and this is the common sense thing for any global brand to do
- newfeatureok 6y agoI don't understand - obviously being #1 will not inherently result in being banned, so the implication is that Parler is bad. If that's the case, doesn't it basically just beg the question I posed in the parent post?
- ironman1478 6y agoJust ban it and don't let it back, lets be done with this.
- metiscus 6y agoMoving the discourse further away from the light won't help cure the divide in this country. We need more discussion, not less. We need to get both sides talking to each other not to themselves about each other.
- ironman1478 6y ago[deleted]
- zionic 6y agoCould you please delete this? Your post is playing into the right wing narrative that leftists == abused, also: Your username is 10 off of 1488, a nazi number (look it up)
- ironman1478 6y agoI didn't know either of those things. Deleted.
- zionic 6y agoMy post was supposed to be over the top sarcastic, sorry for not including the /s
- bladefire 6y agoCommunists did far more destruction than fascists, I am sure you are as white as a dove. The oa 1) Freedom 2) War 3) Despotism 4) Monarchy Or Republic 5) democracy 6) fascism Or Socialism Or communism 7) Totalinarianism Or genocide
- Acrobatic_Road 6y agoThis is going to lead to violence by the way.
- tptacek 6y agoAllowing it to fester just did lead to violence.
- Acrobatic_Road 6y agoI'm talking about real violence.
- tptacek 6y agoSo am I.
- Acrobatic_Road 6y agoThat was nothing. Insurrection my ass. Call me when the political assassinations start.
- throwaway541403 6y agoDo you think you are being threatened?
- tptacek 6y ago
- Pxtl 6y agoThere's an amusing irony in the downvotes in this thread. The champions of free-speech angry that Apple might ban a platform for speech that ultimately led to an attempted insurrection? These champions of free speech seem to be agressively trying to silence anybody happy about this news.
- nailer 6y agoWhat was the insurrection? Some protestors got into the Capitol building. Don't make it out like it's more than it is.
- hilbertseries 6y agoProtestors, armed with guns and pipe bombs carrying zip ties as well. Who were seeking to stop the certification of the electoral college vote. Yes, insurrection.
- aezakmi 6y agoAre you retarded? Black panther walked into the Capitol wielding guns and nobody called it an insurrection. Gringo coasties are so retarded, ffs.
- nailer 6y agoIt's America. People arm themselves. It was far less violent and less of a show of power than taking over a police station and city blocks from the other group.
- tempsy 6y agoSuddenly half the population is realizing the cons of centralized platforms. Curious if this moment sparks renewed interest in decentralized tech of yesteryear ie the good ol world wide web.
- throwaway3699 6y agoI do agree with you, though keep in mind that the previous version of the web worked great when it was run by engineers (that cared about silly things like freedom of speech) and not valueless executives.
- Veen 6y agoEngineers built every one of these services, or people who enjoy thinking of themselves as engineers.
- tempsy 6y agoI just mean I think we will start seeing more interest/investment in things like progressive web apps that aren’t beholden to centralized platforms but feel like native mobile apps.
- input_sh 6y ago...which will lead to nothing in this specific case because iOS is absolutely the main platform holding back PWAs.
- tempsy 6y agoThe point is these platforms are actively banning apps that appeal to a political party that represents half of America. if Parler is banned from the App Store a PWA is the next best thing.
- CraigJPerry 6y agoDo you think decentralisation is the key? I’ve been thinking about it since yesterday and i’m leaning toward profit motive as the difference. We were pretty centralised around a few locations like slashdot & newsgroups. Walled gardens were a thing, here in the UK a service called CIX was popular but AOL is the big famous one. It’s not that we communicated less, group messaging with non-techie friends was done over email - cue flashback to 300-message deep top-posted replies. It’s not that we were better in any way, the anarchist’s cookbook cost many a high school several new sets of door locks. Back orifice was a thing and was used for real scummy purposes sometimes. I landed at profit motive as the difference. Just before the era of spyware is where i’m thinking it fell apart but I’m not at all confident in my assessment.
- gfodor 6y agoThis year when you go home for Thanksgiving, your mom is going to ask you to set up that "dark web thingie."
- airstrike 6y agohttps://genius.com/7410729 https://genius.com/7410729 I read about you and came home to find my mother Staring deep into the dark, dark web She started begging me Not to give my social security number to anybody else There goes the sound of the freeway
- kemitchell 6y agoOh, this gave me a good laugh. Thank you!
- vimy 6y agoFirst they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
- varjag 6y agoFirst they came for Nazis, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Nazi. Then… it turned out kind of fine.
- metiscus 6y agoWe should be careful with sweeping generalizations, especially when in this case, it may rob us of the opportunity to achieve reconciliation via frank discussions with people of opposing views. Most people that voted for Donald Trump are not Nazis. Most people on Parler are not Nazis. Most of the protests over the past several years were not violent.
- readmorebooks 6y agoWhich is why Apple is saying to Parler "Remove the Nazis and you can stay" rather than immediately removing it. If it is removed, it is because Parler felt allowing Nazis to use their platform was important enough to have their app removed.
- metiscus 6y agoGoogle just removed it from the store.
- WindyLakeReturn 6y agoTurns out that isn't exactly the case. While Nazis were thrown into Soviet concertation camps, it didn't stop there and did not turn out 'kind of fine' for many innocent people who later shared a similar fate. >A study published by the German government in 1974 estimated the number of German civilian victims of crimes during expulsion of Germans after World War II between 1945 and 1948 to be over 600,000, with about 400,000 deaths in the areas east of Oder and Neisse (ca. 120,000 in acts of direct violence, mostly by Soviet troops but also by Poles, 60,000 in Polish and 40,000 in Soviet concentration camps or prisons mostly from hunger and disease, and 200,000 deaths among civilian deportees to forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union), 130,000 in Czechoslovakia (thereof 100,000 in camps) and 80,000 in Yugoslavia (thereof 15,000 to 20,000 from violence outside of and in camps and 59,000 deaths from hunger and disease in camps). >Some German prisoners were released soon after the war. Many others, however, remained in the GULAG long after the surrender of Nazi Germany. Among the most famous German POWs to die in Soviet captivity was Captain Wilm Hosenfeld, who died of injuries, sustained possibly under torture, in a concentration camp near Stalingrad in 1952. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes Edit: Removed some grammar that was too redundant on review.
- decebalus1 6y agoBefore anyone starts complaining about censorship or free speech in the context of the first amendment, I'll just leave this here: https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/17/18682099/supreme-court-ruling-first-amendment-social-media-public-forum https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/17/18682099/supreme-court-ru... Along with the actual text from the constition: AMENDMENT I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
- eloff 6y agoThe first amendment doesn't apply to private platforms or spaces. Perhaps it should when those platforms develop monopoly levels of control over distribution.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- beerandt 6y agoThe 14th amendment applies right now, as is. It's as much of a civil rights issue as it is freedom of speech.
- decebalus1 6y agoDoes it tho? The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Arguably one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials. I fail to see how Twitter acts on behalf of government officials.
- ed25519FUUU 6y ago2016-2020 is going to leave such a hangover for everyone who abandoned their convictions for free speech and open platforms. Pre-2016 San Francisco used to be full of people with HUGE distrust of the USA intelligence apparatus, distrust of mainstream news, and strong convictions about free speech and open platforms. And where are they now? "Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
- abc_lisper 6y agoNo, because he abused it by being a gas lighter. He hacked the hackers, lol.
- rajacombinator 6y agoMaybe amongst certain niche communities, but (sadly) these have been a tiny, tiny fraction of the tech population for long time.
- beerandt 6y agoAlways imagine the worst abuser of a power obtaining it, before granting any power to a government entity.
- jancsika 6y ago> Pre-2016 San Francisco used to be full of people with HUGE distrust of the USA intelligence apparatus, Moxie, and probably a bunch others that I can't think of in 5 seconds. (Probably look at the staff list at EFF web page.) > distrust of mainstream news, I can guarantee you the next mainstream news article critical of adtech here on HN will have its normal share of knee-jerk cranks who justify not reading the article by lazy reference to the Gell-Mann Amnesia Affectation. So don't worry at all about that one. > and strong convictions about free speech Yes, those strong convictions have apparently been slipping, but it's across the board and for decades. If anyone has some sources that explain this trend I'd be interested in reading them. > and open platforms Oh, those. They're either stuck in the 90s because it's impossible to make them secure after the fact, or they are full of open research problems. Counterexamples welcome.
- systemvoltage 6y agoIt’s sounds dystopian but I want a complete crackdown of this trump nonsense. I don’t want my kids to grow up with these idiots nor do I want Trumpism ever to be anywhere near my family. Trump has destroyed America. Ban him from every platform.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Acrobatic_Road 6y agoIt sounds dystopian because it is! Shame on you all!
- systemvoltage 6y agoI know, its my knee-jerk reaction :( But this is how I feel right now and so many Americans. Trump is getting banned left and right as we speak. We have freedom of speech, just not for seditious, insurrectionists. No country in the world would tolerate what US has tolerated so far. I also recognize, fully, this is a slippery slope and there should be a pretty high bar for banning people on social media platforms. I would say Trump and Trumpism, QAnon and all this has crossed the line.
- Acrobatic_Road 6y agoTrump didn't incite violence. As other comments point out, twitter's cited tweets are poor justification. This is a political purge in order to win favor with the biden administration.
- systemvoltage 6y agoDidn't we have an election? How is this a purge?
- h_anna_h 6y agoNo offence but maybe the country that drone-strikes children in middle east, south america, and asia should be destroyed and the one who manages that should be named a hero. It has become tiresome seeing americans (both left and right) whine all the time about every single thing while they silently ignore that they are bombing civilians.
- mullingitover 6y agoThe bigger social networks at least invest enough in moderation teams to give themselves some legal cover. From what I understand, Parler's community moderation is a tiny team that's wildly understaffed for the task they need to accomplish. The question now will be whether this constitutes negligence on their part. Sounds like Apple thinks it does.
- stopFalse 6y agoLove it. This will teach anyone that buying Apple is anti consumer. Jk constant advertising will gaslight the Truth.
- egypturnash 6y agoHahahah fuck yes. Deplatform.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ALittleLight 6y agoSome of the screenshots seem objectionable, e.g. the one that wanted to burn down Pelosi's house while she was still inside, others seem like opinions, e.g. the one saying the protester shot by police was murdered, but none seem particularly bad, where "particularly bad" means "worse than content I'd find on Twitter". Seems inconsistent to me to ban Parler and not Twitter. Also seems undesirable for a phone manufacturer to tell me what software I should or shouldn't use.
- MattGaiser 6y agoTwitter moderates. Parler is being required to do the same.
- bebopcowboy 6y agoTwitter only moderates if you have a certain political affiliation. Blue checkmarks made threats and organized violence directly on the platform all summer and Twitter didn’t bat an eye.
- FireBeyond 6y agohttps://twitter.com/slpng_giants/status/1347609631527489537 https://twitter.com/slpng_giants/status/1347609631527489537 > Many of Us will return ... carrying Our weapons. ... We will come in numbers that no standing army or police agency can match. However, the police are NOT our enemy, unless they choose to be! > I hope the cop gets doxxed and murdered. That would be the only real justice. > Federal swine most definitely. Dozens of them need to be eliminated. >> All
- burnthrow 6y ago> > Many of Us will return ... carrying Our weapons. ... We will come in numbers that no standing army or police agency can match. However, the police are NOT our enemy, unless they choose to be! This is so embarrassing, you'd think people so hard right would remember the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Technology lols at their "numbers."
- TheBlight 6y agoI mean, of course they have. Who is the least bit surprised?
- factorialboy 6y agoIf you are a liberal / progressive and your outlook is medium to long-term, this is the last thing you want Apple to do. Denying people their voice makes them more dangerous. Let's give them a means to vent out / express themselves. Violent subgroups / individuals can be addressed, but please don't deny the __entire__ opposition their voice. The last thing you want is for the conservative movement to be hosted on a Chinese or Russian platform. It is really time to bridge the divide and come together. That's not to say adopt a soft approach against the violent / revolutionary elements. If 48% of these United States voted for Trump, only a handful of those are violent. As victors can we show some compassion, and more important, in the coming four years, how can we win over that other half of the country, who are for the most part non-violent lawful people.
- BitwiseFool 6y agoYou're taking the empathetic path and I wish more people did as well. I think the past 4 years were deeply traumatic for most of the progressive left. They control these institutions and they want to make damn sure Donald Trump never happens again.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago> They control these institutions and they want to make damn sure Donald Trump never happens again. Oddly enough Trump was all but a symptom of a system that's completely hollowed out and unable to work for the Trump crowd. Not only does the system not work for Trump ppl - it effectively represents no one. So you end up with this pathetic ping-pong between major parties, trying to declaring their "mandate" after each election. The truth is that a sliver of swing voters is switching between absolute fools and empty suits. Biden is The System incarnate - he created the void that was begging for Trump and it'll be interesting to see what happens next. Instead of trying to understand how the Trump crowd is ailing and respond to their requests for help and recognition no matter how distorted and seemingly vulgar/uncivilized/etc., we had 4 years of hysteric catastrophizing, outright conspiracy theories(like Russia-gate) and obstruction. Let's remind everyone that Hillary participated in the whole "switch the electors", "he's an illegitimate president" talk.
- guscost 6y agoRemember “If you don’t like Twitter’s rules, you are perfectly free to make your own platform”? I suppose we are perfectly free to make our own pocket computers now, right?
- CraigRood 6y agoThese platforms exist for the purpose of capturing content that has been “deplatformed”. >Speak freely and express yourself openly, without fear of being “deplatformed” for your views. Engage with real people, not bots. Parler is people and privacy-focused, and gives you the tools you need to curate your Parler experience. Parler frontpage. They have no intention of creating a real alternative to Twitter. Lets be honest here, It's not like you can't have a conversation on Twitter either if your views are alternative. It's their hateful, harmful and offensive comments that will get them "deplatformed".
- guscost 6y agoYou are twisting yourself into a logical pretzel to avoid answering. And no, harmful content does not get you deplatformed if it harms the right people: https://twitter.com/chineseembinus/status/1347247602094534658 https://twitter.com/chineseembinus/status/134724760209453465...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- strathmeyer 6y agoYes you are free to make your own pocket computers. What are you blabbering about?
- zwass 6y agoFWIW linked comment has been moderated.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 6y ago
- u10 6y agoI think more students need to study how the Nazis came to power; while violent attempts were made (Beer Hall Putsch) and low level political violence between various political factions, the Nazis did not gain power through those acts. Rather a slow burn, leveraging the democratic process in the Wiemar Republic. Violence now, but these people might eventually get it together and use the democratic political process to their advantage.
- Laarlf 6y agoThis doesnt really have anything to do with Nazis. This was a few people who were really unhappy with their government and who actually stood up against that. Something to respect, even if you do not agree with their point. Because if they get caught, you can be sure that they will spend a few decades jailed.
- anigbrowl 6y agoA few people? There were thousands involved, and a plurality of Republicans support their action, according to this (reasonably reputable) poll: https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/01/07/US-capitol-trump-poll https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20... Over 70 million people voted for Trump, who has made no secret of his disdain for many groups of people and institutions. After 4 years of having him as President, youc an't say they didn't know what his deal was or were misled by his TV celebrity status. Minimizing the structural issue is unhelpful.
- u10 6y agoI'm sorry, what? Why would I, or anyone with any shred of dignity respect people who were attempting to overturn a free, fair, and legal election using violence (there were individuals laying pipebombs, carrying weapons, and zipties !!!) ? They have every right to voice their displeasure, either at the Capitol or at the ballot box, not by hunting politicans and executing them.
- Laarlf 6y agoThere is a lot of evidence that voter fraud has happened. While i doubt that it would have made a considerable dent, the election was far from "free, fair and legal". The protestors intent obviously was not to slaughter politicians. That would have happened as a start. Showing the people that control you that you are displeased with their actions will do considerably more than "voting harder". Especially if their ballot just gets burnt.
- hilyen 6y agoPeople don’t seem to understand, censorship is a double edged sword. You never know who will be in charge years from now and will abuse those very same good intentioned laws & we end up a police state.
- war1025 6y agoWell, hey, as long as its your sub-human enemies going off to the death camps, it doesn't really matter, right?
- ravenstine 6y agoAnd being against draconian censorship doesn't mean being against all forms of content moderation.
- Proziam 6y agoIt's the publisher vs platform debate. Private communities can moderate. Public utilities (Social Media) should not, but currently do. Social Media companies call themselves platforms while acting like publishers. They do this while using engagement-driving algorithms that intentionally stir up dissent because [0]negativity increases engagement. [0] https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JAMR-05-2017-0065/full/html https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JAMR-05-...
- lovecg 6y agoI agree. It would be very dangerous if people in charge, say, prohibited Apple (a private company) from removing Parler. Thankfully, the 1st amendment is still in power and Apple is free to express itself as it sees fit.
- read_if_gay_ 6y agoYou're arguing as if there were no precedent for this, but there already are bounds to how Apple can "express itself". They cannot refuse to serve people of a certain race for example. So are we in a dangerous place now, or should Apple be allowed to exclude people by race?
- o_p 6y agoImagine owning a phone that can only get content approved by Apple and can cancel you for any arbitrary reason. Its like buying a radio that can only listen to democrats approved stations, its ridiculous and yet the fanboys will defend their shitty practices no matter what
- lovecg 6y agoYou can... buy a different phone?
- o_p 6y agoOr the goverment could defend me from corporations leveraging their power against consumers?. When companies are clearly having so much power they are influencing media and political opinion its not just their private property like the backyard of a house
- lovecg 6y agoOnce we live in the world where the iPhone is the only option then yes, you can make the case that it’s anti-consumer.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y agoYou're trying to skate over the difference between good-faith political debate and bad-faith encouragement of violence and sedition. Diverse dissenting views are fine. Plotting armed violence to overturn a legitimate election result isn't. If the far-right can't operate without plotting armed violence - and there's plenty of evidence it can't - then it puts itself outside the reach of any free speech arguments. Not just because its views are abhorrent, but because it would gleefully destroy absolutely all forms of dissenting free speech itself if given the opportunity.
- cbnotfromthere 6y ago"Plotting armed violence to overturn a legitimate election result isn't" There are already laws and means to deal with plotting armed violence. None of them include (or should include) banning the phone company / app company / phone maker / etc.
- spaetzleesser 6y agoInstead of going after tech companies I would prefer to see putting more responsibility on the political system. I came to the US in 2000. Back then politics were already bad but now the message is pretty much "The other guys are evil", "anti-american", "racists", "socialist" or whatever. all messaging is designed to put up hard barriers between people that can't be overcome. Social networks certainly amplify things but in the end we need more discipline from political leadership to not constantly incite anger in the population. With companies censoring more and more information it's pretty much guaranteed that they will also censor information that's inconvenient to them. The internet should be open and stay open.
- bastawhiz 6y agoParler, which is outwardly pro-free speech, aggressively removes any non-right-wing discourse on its platform and shadowbans topics from search and feeds. At the same time, they do not moderate threats of violence or plans to commit those acts of violence (which we've witnessed come to fruition this week). At what point do we stop calling Parler a platform for free speech and admit that it is actively breeding violence? If I release a messaging app on the app store and call it a tool for free speech, but block any content that doesn't have to do with committing acts of violence against members of congress, what argument is there for not blocking my app? Any discussions about the merits of free speech around Apple and Parler here are largely moot: none of the parties involved here truly value "free as in freedom" speech and never have. The pot and the kettle are arguing about which one is blacker.
- mudil 6y agoHow did antifa and others organized in the last 6 months? Did those apps get banned?
- cblconfederate 6y agoThanks apple for bringing people back to the web. Please ban more
- Qasaur 6y agoCompletely ridiculous. If a major corporation in concordance with other entities bans speech that does toe the party line - that is quite literally fascism and something straight out of 1984. BLM and their like was burning down cities for months with support from these same corporates, and that is suddenly OK and not morally questionable because orange man bad? I'm not defending the Trumpers who stormed the capitol, but the double standards are extremely blatant. I think companies who are operating in spaces that may be targeted for wrongthink (pornography, arms dealers, even crypto to an extent) should seriously consider contingency plans (avoid vendor/platform lock-in, have a backup progressive web app in case your app gets booted etc.) in the event the leftist/SJW/mainstream media mob targets them and kicks them off large platforms (including infrastructure - AWS/GCP/Azure is NOT safe).
- decebalus1 6y agoOn a tangent, why did your twitter get suspended?
- jimmy2020 6y agoDid they do the same thing with FB after Cambridge Analytica? or is it about a social platform going big and popular and should be taken down to keep the current status quo. Also apple: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25411660 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25411660
- subsubzero 6y agoI don't understand what people don't get about the 1st amendment. A right to free speech, is set in stone in the US Constitution, a private company can enforce their own censorship, but having a company that wants to have the 1st amendment and is being forced to be shut down is not what the US is about. Threats and actions to commit treason should be handled by authorities and prosecuted. But someone saying they don't believe the election results should not be silenced. Its their right to free speech and the US constitution guarantees it. We had 4 years of major media and almost all journalists saying Russia stole/meddled with our election and none of them was criticized as saying they are trying to deliberately sabotage democracy or silenced via social media platforms. Lets also not forget the "resist" movement which was to openly defy a democratically elected president, is that treason? No its free speech. The whole reason you had a bunch of desperate crazies storming congress is an extreme effort to silence speech and whole communities by big tech and the media. Happy content people that are doing well and are well represented do not do these actions, things are not going well in the this country and censorship about ideas someone does not like is like dousing a blazing inferno with gasoline.
- CameronNemo 6y ago>none of them was criticized as saying they are trying to deliberately sabotage democracy There was a substantial amount of hard evidence in the Russia interference claims, and the FBI has confirmed that. Also nobody died in relation to those claims, AFAIK. There were marches and impeachment proceedings, but nobody broke into the Senate chambers and shouted "that election was a lie".
- mlyle 6y ago> I don't understand what people don't get about the 1st amendment. A right to free speech, is set in stone in the US Constitution, a private company can enforce their own censorship, but having a company that wants to have the 1st amendment and is being forced to be shut down is not what the US is about. Are you saying that Apple should be compelled to help Parler and amplify their speech/give them a platform?
- subsubzero 6y ago
- gpm 6y agoFundamentally I believe this should be an anti-trust violation. But then I think the whole "only allow your own software to run on your patented hardware (which you therefore have a government granted monopoly on)" should be an anti-trust violation too. Taking it as a given that Apple has the right to control what software people run on the IPhones that they own. And taking it as a given that we have apparently decided aggressively deplatforming these people is the right action (which I also disagree with in general [1] - but my objection doesn't actually apply in this case). I'm not sure that I see why Apple controlling it's platform is different than reddit/facebook/twitter/youtube controlling their platform, and if there is no relevant distinction then this seems like reasonable corporate speech. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25688130 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25688130
- shakkhar 6y agoHistorically, anti-trust authorities have been more concerned about horizontal integration, not vertical integration. On top of that, Apple is not even the largest phone maker in the US, owning around 13% market share. For an anti-trust suite to be successful, the prosecutor needs to prove consumer harm, and that will be hard in this case. (IANAL.)
- gpm 6y agoI am without a doubt arguing for a change of law. There are actually two changes that would need to be made for my post to work. First, that the law should acknowledge that Apple has 100% market share on every patented feature, and therefore they have a monopoly, not on smart phones, but on "smart phones with rounded corners" and numerous other design decisions and features that they have chosen to patent and gain a monopoly on. This is a change in how the relevant market is defined. Second, that any prevention of competition in after markets should be illegal, not just prevention of competition in after markets that consumers weren't aware of when they bought the device. Consumer harm here is trivial. That want to use an app, they cannot, that is harm. (Ianal either, but spent a lot of time reading about this sort of issue)
- mcphilip 6y agoBig tech is so desperate to score points with the new administration as soon as Trumpism is in its death throes (hopefully). As much as I hate the content on things like Parker, this makes me sick. I get why they want the kid gloves treatment from the Biden administration, but scrambling to ban content after the Capitol was stormed is about as noble as resigning days before the inauguration. But like it’s been said, “Never let a crises go to waste”.
- im3w1l 6y agoKicking out social platforms during quarantine is evil. This is the last way some folks have of talking to other people. There is no other word for it. Pure evil.
- permo-w 6y agoFirst of all, Parler has a website. Second, cut the emotional language please, this is Hacker News, not Twitter. Third, if Apple don’t want a certain kind of content in their store, that’s up to them. No one is complaining about Apple not allowing porn, or drug content in their store. They don’t approve of this unmoderated content either. That’s up to them, and it’s just as evil as not allowing pornhub to have an app
- exoque 6y agoDoes it even matter? Don't they have a website?
- jonnycomputer 6y agoOf course, this isn't shutting down Parler, it's about removing an app from a store. Cry me a river that they'd have to log in using their phone browser or something. And let's be honest here: even a platform under 230 is not immune to consequences for facilitating a coup or an insurrection, I would have to believe, though I am not a lawyer.
- input_sh 6y ago230 has a "Good Samaritan" portion. In simplest terms, if the platform does its best to remove illegal content, it's good. Parler is definitely not doing that.
- BlueTemplar 6y agoIt's also not Apple's job to do any policing before Parler has been found guilty by a court.
- favorited 6y agoIt's Apple's job to do what they think is best for their ecosystem. That's pretty much their whole job.
- BlueTemplar 6y agoNobody is forced to install Parler. Apple, as a maker of (very!) personal, general computers shouldn't have any say on what the computer users can or can not do once they bought these computers. In fact, IMHO they shouldn't be allowed to control the App Store at all. (Of course this also goes for their competition : Google, Microsoft, probably even Canonical.)
- ogre_codes 6y agoApple isn't deplatforming Parler, but they are requiring they implement moderation. The sole purpose of Parler is to avoid getting moderated, so this is ultimately the same thing. If Parler users can't make threats of violence and hate, what is the point of the platform at all?
- BurningFrog 6y agoOf course you can organize serious crimes on Parler. But that's also true of telephony, postal letters and in person conversations. Uncountable murders have been organized through those channels! Does that mean those means of communication should also at least be monitored, and maybe banned outright? If not, what is the difference?
- anigbrowl 6y agoThe difference is network effects; the other examples you mentioned all involve communications between individuals or small groups. I'm pretty sure this has been explained to you before.
- dang 6y agoPlease omit personal swipes from your comments here. Your post would be fine with just the first sentence—it's a good point and deserves to stand on its own. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- cocacola1 6y agoNo need for a cleaver when a scalpel will work.
- yuchi 6y agoA fairly famous italian band[1] has a line in one of their songs which I cannot shake off me: > Mi sono rotto il cazzo che non sono d’accordo con te / ma morirei affinché tu possa dire la tua stronzata which translates to: > I’m fucking sick of the fact that I do not agree with you / but I would die for you to be able to express your bullshits. The news at hand give me hope that the US (and the world by extension) is somewhat reacting to the ultra-nationalism and populism that have been driving the last years, but at the same time censoring and banning social unrest platforms always leaves a terrible taste… > ... and the wolf chewed up the children and spit out their bones... but those were foreign children and it really didn't matter. (Dr. Seuss) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lo_Stato_Sociale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lo_Stato_Sociale
- mlyle 6y agoI mean, that's just rewording Evelyn Hall's restatement of Voltaire, isn't it? "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- x32n23nr 6y ago"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - from Evelyn Beatrice Hall in her book: The Friends of Voltaire. The quote is an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs.
- yuchi 6y agoAs said to the other commenter, I was unaware of it. Thank you for pointing out. Makes a lot of sense. This gives a different intepretation to the song as you can treat the whole phrase as a quote and that means «I’m sick of this» while I naively believed there was some doubt and uncertainty from the authors. Apparently they are just agreeing with the so called “cancel culture” or censoring
- bargl 6y agoRestricting peoples access to an app in the app store that is also a website is... an exercise in futility. What it does do is further back the extremists idea that they are being marginalized by big tech while others aren't. It is another step of divisiveness that leads to MORE of what just happened on Wednesday. I'm not saying the content of Parler is at all appropriate or that people should be able to call for violence and not be punished. Violence is not the answer, but neither is further disenfranchising people and pushing us further apart.
- timnetworks 6y agoDumb as green paint, but, I secretly hope this type of stuff, that has been living just under the surface of the internet, comes to the surface for all to see plain as day. I think there will be a time when even the average user is conscious of the route his or her packets take, and the events that can occur during that transitory period.
- ENOTTY 6y agoThere are a lot of posts on Parler calling for violence, which violate Parler's terms of service. Parler itself doesn't appear to have strategy for moderating these posts. Apple's ultimatum demands Parler implement a plan for enforcing its own terms of service, and reduce the probability that Parler is used to incite violence.
- bebopcowboy 6y agoThere are a lot of people on Twitter calling for violence, Apple and Twitter don’t care as long as it’s directed at the right people.
- mleonhard 6y agoYour reply is whataboutism. Whataboutism is not part of respectful productive discussions.
- shakkhar 6y agoIt's not whataboutism. It highlights the hypocrisy of such "policy enforcement".
- originalvichy 6y agoIt is because Twitter is an older platform and obviously has an active moderation team. It seems either Parler is unwilling or overwhelmed to clean up shit.
- alkonaut 6y agoTwitter definitely has a moderation strategy and actively is following it. It doesn’t mean it’s 100% but that it’s a good faith attempt to do so. Trying to argue Twitter systematically allows death threats to some people while banning others is an extraordinary claim that you should back up with proof (or remove).
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- charwalker 6y agoI figure as soon as criminal acts, threats, and outright insurrection get tossed in free speech becomes a tool of oppression instead of liberty. These folks deny factual reporting and instead follow a guy who told them to go down to the capitol and be heard. I understand the tech view, I'm coming from a US politics view. Those responsible must be identified and prosecuted. The tools that enabled this insurrection should be dismantled to serve as an example of what happens when conspiracy idiots try to overthrow the US government and will of the people.
- albertgoeswoof 6y agoStreisand effect anyone? Why promote minor social networks in this way? Donald trump has probably been responsible for more Twitter activity than anyone else in the last 4 years.
- filereaper 6y agoWonder if Google will respond similarly and remove it from Google Play Store for Android.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y agoSo when Cathy Griffin held up a beheaded Trump in effigy - should we have imprisoned her? I don't remember many people policing her "incitement to violence."
- shrubble 6y agoIs it my phone or Apple's phone? Shouldn't Apple also install an undelete-able web proxy on my iMac so that I can't access 'dangerous' websites?
- eplanit 6y agoThe left wing is really spurring on the new US civil war that they seem to want so much. I hope they don't succeed.
- sjg007 6y agoDo it.
- smitty1e 6y agoThis is outsourcing tyranny to "private" industry. This is an unexpected paraphrase of David Wheeler: "All problems in political science can be solved by another level of indirection". Conservatives may have the personalities of dented wastebaskets, but they really haven't been as monstrous as what's on the horizon.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y agoYou would think it’d be obvious to “hackers” that consolidation of power over information channels is the real coup. Sad no one seems alarmed by that or understands how that can go wrong.
- glglwty 6y agoDoesn't potentially cutting off millions of customers help with the course of decentralization though?
- gnusty_gnurc 6y agoIt doesn’t seem like the left values discourse. I don’t know if they care to respond to market incentive if that’s what you’re suggesting. This has been apparent for some time and is a complete reversal from when conservatives were the conformist squares policing speech and society broadly.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mchusma 6y agoThis is horrible. I have no interest in parlor, but to require all users on iOS to only be able to communicate in public forums that are moderated is a horrible outcome.
- snarf21 6y agoThey can still use the web interface, right? It is only their app that is violating ToS. I think it would be different in Apple was blocking their DNS.
- noofen 6y agoI'm sure we will see just that before the end of this year.
- agensaequivocum 6y agoApple should probably remove Safari since there's too much unmoderated content on the open web.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- alkonaut 6y agoApple doesn’t take any responsibility for websites. They moderate the App Store. Anything on the App Store is there with Apple’s blessing. That includes the content inside third party apps that is only created by its users. Apple just don’t want to be associated with it.
- agensaequivocum 6y agoAnd Parler doesn't take responsibility for user generated content. So how is that any different?
- alkonaut 6y ago
- emmelaich 6y agoThe "hatespeech" screenshots were worse than mere hate, they were calls for homicidal violence. Also, they were all from one account. Quite weird. I hope the Apple/Google admins are conscious of the possibility of agents provocateur.
- Sophistifunk 6y agoDon't people realise that the winds will change, and the censorship machine will be working against their cause next?
- mzs 6y ago>Anyone who buys an Apple phone is apparently a user. Apparently they know what is best for you by telling you which apps you may and may not use. Apparently they believe Parler is responsible for ALL user generated content on Parler. Therefor by the same logic, Apple must be responsible for ALL actions taken by their phones. Every car bomb, every illegal cell phone conversation, every illegal crime committed on an iPhone, Apple must also be responsible for.... Standards not applied to Twitter, Facebook or even Apple themselves, apply to Parler. >>Jan 8, 2021 >>To the developers of the Parler app require your immediate attention regarding… >>… intended to incite violence or other lawless acts has never been acceptable on the App Store. >>Your CEO was quoted recently saying l'But I don't feel responsible for any of this and neither should the platform, considering we're a neutral town square that just adheres to the law!' We want to be clear that Parler is in fact responsible for all the user generated content present on your service and for ensuring that this content meets App Store requirements for the safety and protection of our users. We won't distribute apps that present dangerous and harmful content. >>We have now rejected your app for the App Store Review Guidelines detailed below. * https://twitter.com/arawnsley/status/1347705034184777742 https://twitter.com/arawnsley/status/1347705034184777742
- dmitrygr 6y agoWhich part of what he said do you feel is incorrect? Facebook and Twitter indeed are not being held to the same standard. They have a 0% chance of being removed from any app store no matter what. Hell, the whole time Twitter allowed Trump to tweet and gave him a platform, they were threatened with app store delisting precisely 0 times.
- p1318820 6y agoWhy do you feel that they should be held to the same standard? Violent content is a tiny of percentage of twitter, but a huge part of parler. Twitter also does moderate their platform, Parler refuses to. One of these obviously has a bigger problem with violent content than the other.
- agensaequivocum 6y ago
- koolba 6y agoHe also posted from the @potus account and Twitter immediately deleted the tweets. In case you missed it (because it was only up for a minute): > As I have been saying for a long time, Twitter has gone further and further in banning free speech, and tonight, Twitter employees have coordinated with the Democrats and the Radical Left in removing my account from their platform, to silence me — and YOU, the 75,000,000 great... > ...patriots who voted for me. Twitter may be a private company, but without the government’s gift of Section 230 they would not exist for long. I predicted this would happen. We have been negotiating with various other sites, and will have a big announcement soon, while we... > ...also look at the possibilities of building out our own platform in the near future. We will not be SILENCED! Twitter is not about FREE SPEECH. They are all about promoting a Radical Left platform where some of the most vicious people in the world are allowed to speak freely...
- gnusty_gnurc 6y agoIt’s pretty clear tech companies have figured out you don’t have to pay your employees more, pandering to them gives them much more.
- busymom0 6y agoEnough people need to put pressure on these companies to stop censorship. These companies still care a bit about emails and customer reviews. This is why cancel culture gets away with it because they mass email them to take down and de-platform people. Here's an email template. You can modify it as needed and send it. I sent it to these two emails WHICH ARE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE ON THEIR SITE so I am not doxxing: product-security@apple.com tcook@apple.com ----------- TEMPLATE: I wasn't able to find a specific place to send this feedback so using this email. Please forward to the relevant department. I am a brown immigrant to Canada. I usually don't mention my race but it seems relevant in this topic. I as well as my family own several Apple products including iPhones, MacBooks, Mac Minis etc. Several of us and my friends are also developers for the App Store. I am deeply disappointed in Apple threatening censorship and banning of apps which don't align with Apple staff's views. I understand calls to violence are unacceptable but Apple banning apps like Parler just for political speech which isn't violence is deeply disappointing. I am not sure if you are aware but apps like Twitter, Reddit have and allow porn, illegal porn, and regularly calls to violence. Twitter allows violent terrorists like Antifa, Iranian dictator who calls for assassination and violence to stay on their platform but has banned a democratically elected President just because they disagree with him. Facebook has banned WalkAway group - founded by a gay man, with 500000 members consisting of ex-liberals who have left the democrat party. These members were mainly gays, blacks, brown, hispanics, women etc who have now been banned by Facebook. How can Apple accept apps like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit which openly allow porn, illegal content etc while banning gays, blacks, hispanics etc simply because they are conservative? And now Apple is threatening banning Parler too? Doesn't Apple stand for freedom of expression, stand with gays and PRIDE? Does Apple believe us brown, gays, blacks, hispanics etc aren't allowed to have differing view points? This is a deeply disturbing and concerning thing which Apple is doing and essentially pouring gasoline over already polarized population. Apple is forgetting that until a few decades ago, us minorities like blacks, gays, jews etc were threatened with the same censorship. Apple should reflect on this and stop this blatant censorship. Otherwise I along with my friends and family will stop supporting and purchasing Apple products. There would remain no reason for me to support Apple if they have forgotten their own 1984 ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I Regards,
- busymom0 6y agoFew decades ago, us brown, blacks, gays, jews etc were banned and anyone defending them was destroyed. Now people are forgetting that conservatives are the new group going through the same. They are the modern group being targeted as "don't buy from the jews". Once this is all over, everyone will simply look back and wonder "Hmmm, I can't believe people did this to them. But it surely can't happen again." Typical human nature.
- busymom0 6y agoIf you think the coming CIA/DHS war on domestic terror is just for Trump's base, keep in mind the longtime targets of those agencies. For the CIA, it's leftists and for DHS, it's people of color. People on both sides will be labeled "domestic terrorists" when convenient.
- de6u99er 6y agoLet's take a helicopter view first. Accounts being banned because of hate-speech, threatening violence, or glorification of terrorist acts is nothing new and shouldn't surprise anybody here. That being said, Trump's Twitter account, contrary to other peoples accounts, enjoyed special privileges and protection only because he was (currently still is) the president if the USA. After the riots which were started at his rally, him not only refusing to condemn the violence but actually endorsing it, and the Capitol Police's stranfe way of handling the situation, he lost this privilege. On a personal note I'd like to add, that Trump pardoning war criminals and protecting disproportional police violence reminded me of Adolf Hitler's rise when he surrounded himself with dishonorably discharged military and police before he grabbed absolute power in Germany. I believe USA ditched a bullet here. Without his catastrophic COVID-19 response he might have been re-elected and behaved more unhinged than he already did in his second term.
- reddog 6y agoI am more concerened about people attacking the Bill of Rights than I am people attacking the capital building. Bottom line: if you are anti-free speech, you are the baddie.
- alanchen 6y agohttps://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/magazine/free-speech.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/magazine/free-speech.html
- macinjosh 6y agoThank you Twitter. Not for virtue signaling by deleting the President’s Twitter account in his final days in office. (If he is so bad what took so long?) No, thank you for demonstrating to the American public the value of decentralized and open platforms. The powers that be would have been better served if this never happened.
- systemvoltage 6y agoWhat's the difference between banning Parler and 8chan? Would Apple allow 8Chan app?
- Simulacra 6y agoEventually would this deplatforming not push more people on Tor, and deeper underground? I worry if they're restricted too much, may lead to gross privacy harms for all of us. Better to let some outlets exist for the sake of monitoring.
- GoldenMonkey 6y agoThere was a time when any form of censorship was anti-american. Now, if one’s opinion does not conform to society’s version of what is true. That opinion is silenced. And that person is socially and publicly shamed. We are a nation constantly judging each other’s thoughts. And if you happen to agree with society’s current truth. You agree that silencing these ‘evil ppl’ is just, and the right thing to do. They should be silenced. They should lose their jobs. Their livelihoods. All that is missing, is throwing them into the gulag, to change their ‘evil’ thoughts. How fascist we have become.
- curlyQueue 6y agoThere is no argument for censorship, suspension or banning, based on our 1st amendment—- on any of the multiple platforms doing so. I came on here just to check what the “young intellectual tech” community thinks— I consider myself part of it. I’m a 20-something female, born in the heart of Silicon Valley, and have been heavily involved in tech during my short career. Heads up: This isn’t animal farm, this is 1984! I never post on here and stopped reading awhile ago due to the one-minded propaganda I consistently find on the site these days (i was a lurker a longtime before i made this account) but I feel compelled to share my opinion because these times matter, and us young (and old) folks matter. Amen and a-women? Welcome to the best addition to New Speak. Please look that up if you don’t know what it is. Have you zoomed out on how Big (and Little) Tech had subtle involvement here? And how they may be affecting how you’re thinking? I can personally say after having deleted social media for almost 2 years, and combing through different sources (time consuming)- I feel very differently now than I did four years, or eight years ago. See my links below. “I don’t like Trump” and “not being a Trump supporter,” standing behind Big Tech — the badges of honor on Hacker News. But here’s my practical advice: be very careful who you’re choosing. Everything in life is a trade off— even who’s in the White House, who’s in office, who you’re casting your votes for, the apps you use, and the companies you give your money and support to. Another piece of advice: for some laughs, and practical news these days, check out AwakenwithJP and Brett Pella :-) (seriously all their videos are pretty good, especially JP!) Another piece: Hear other perspectives “i was wrong about the Democratic Party,” Georgia H. Finally, I’ll close with this recommendation: “when the plague arrives,” NTD. Hope you hackers open your big brains, put your thinking caps on and leave confirmation bias in the past.
- mleonhard 6y agoI just downloaded the Parler app on iOS. I am unable to create an account. The signup screen's "next" button does nothing. Is the Parler backend down? Their website https://home.parler.com https://home.parler.com does not have a status page. I found a news report saying that the app was overloaded earlier today after Twitter banned Trump. Their signup page asks for email address and phone number. Maybe their backend purchased my profile from Axciom or another analytics company and is silently refusing me an account. Or maybe they don't let people in San Francisco sign up?
- threesmegiste 6y agoI hope these censorships wake u up
- jackjeff 6y agoI don’t understand this attitude which consists of censoring objectionable content like one sweeps dirt under the carpet. If what these people are saying is illegal, just go and arrest them, make them face a judge and go to jail. Otherwise, let them have fun with their silly petty flat earth theories, or whatever imaginary BS they fancy.
- alkonaut 6y agoWhy should Apple or Twitter have to maintain platforms full of content that 99% of their useless object to even though it’s legal (bullying, racism, whatever)? The bar for illegal speech is extremely high, especially in the US. That’s usually a good thing. I don’t want to read that content. More importantly, I don’t want to advertise on the platform with that content.
- shakkhar 6y ago> I don’t want to read that content. More importantly, I don’t want to advertise on the platform with that content. Both Twitter and Apple gives you plenty of tools to avoid reading or advertising next to that content. Apple's action has nothing to do with end user preference. This decision was entirely driven by preference of a small group of tech elite.
- alkonaut 6y agoThat’s an extraordinary claim that would be very hard to back up with evidence.
- exabrial 6y agoOne has to remember, Apple, Google, and Facebook all have partisan anti-monopoly regulation gaining traction. This is nothing more than an attempt to cozy up to the incoming administration to protect their monopolies and abuse of consumers.
- asiachick 6y agoI don't know if it will be this particular event but ... my imagined scenario goes like this Apple and Google ban Parler. Parler people spread the word how to sideload on Android. Parler people on iOS get angry and lobby their congress people to force Apple to allow sideloading and/or alternate stores. I don't think you can really prevent people from communicating. Yes it sucks they're lying to each other and causing a ruckus. Can you imagine if they managed to do this via the phone and the phone companies cancelled their phone service. Yes, I know the phone company can't do that legally but that's precisely my point. These people are going to push for laws that allow them to communicate however they want. Removing the apps from Google Play and Apple App store will not stop this. Or at least that's my prediction. I have no solution unfortunately. This seems like the new norm. In fact maybe it's part of the great filter: Mass many to many communication and its repercussions.
- techsin101 6y agoi dont know about anyone but kinda screams censorship to me